Skip to main content

Full text of "Some notable archbishops of Canterbury"

See other formats



By permission of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
























THE writer claims neither originality of thought 
nor depth of research in . regard to the following 
memoirs. But he believes that the attempt to give, 
in brief outline, the main facts in the lives of some 
of the greatest occupants of the chair of St. Augus- 
tine may assist in bringing home to many readers 
the grand historic continuity of the Anglican branch 
of the Catholic Church. 

He gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to 
Dean Hook's valuable work in compiling the 
accounts of the earlier archbishops, and to the 
Bishop of Rochester's most attractive life of Arch- 
bishop Tait. His best thanks are due to Canon 
Erskine Clarke for permission to use the excellent 
reproductions of the Lambeth portraits. 

M. F. 

APRIL, 1895. 




I. AUGUSTINE (597-604) ... ... ... ... 7 

II. THEODORE (669-690) ... ... ... 20 

III. ANSELM (1093-1109). Portrait of Gri ndal ... 34 


IV. BECKET (1162-1171) ... ... ... 48 

V. CHICHELEY (1414-1443) ... ... ... 62 

VI. WARHAM (1503-1532). With Portrait ... 76 

VII. CRANMER (1533-1556). With Portrait ... 89 

VIII. PARKER (1559-1575). With Portrait ... 101 

IX. LAUD (1633-1645). With Portrait ... ... 113 

X. SANCROFT (1678-1693) ... ... ... 126 

XI. HOWLEY (1828-1848). Portrait of Whit gijt ... 139 

XII. SUMNER (1848-1862) ... ... ... 154 

XIII. LO.NGLEY (1862-1868) ... ... ... ... 170 

XIV. TAIT (1869-1882) ... ... ... ... 186 


CANTERBURY ... ... ... 203 


OF CANTERBURY ... .... 205 


INDEX ... ... ... ... ... ... 219 




AUGUSTINE (597-604 A.D.). 

JUST as the civil history of England is closely 
bound up in the lives of the monarchs who have 
occupied the throne of this land, so the religious 
history of the nation centres round the person and 
character of those men who have been called, by 
Divine Providence, to preside over the destinies of 
the National Church. 

The exact date of the introduction of Christianity 
into Britain is uncertain, and we have no evidence 
to show by whom the gospel was originally preached 
to the Celts, the first known inhabitants of these 
islands. Tertullian (" Adv. Judasos," c. 7) states that 
the regions of Britain, inaccessible to the Romans, 
were subdued to Christ in the second century ; and 
other authorities assert that this was effected by 
missionaries from the East, either by direct com- 
munication, or through the Churches of Gaul. 

The history of the British Church, like its origin, 


is involved in obscurity. The Anglo-Saxons, after 
their conquest, appear to have destroyed the docu- 
ments which came into their possession, or else to 
have allowed them to perish. We have, however, 
sufficient evidence to show that among the Irish 
(or Scots), the Caledonians, the Welsh, and the 
British, during the fourth and fifth centuries, the 
learning, zeal, and piety of the Church had extended 
widely, and had obtained a firm hold over the re- 
ligious aspirations of the people. 

We know that British bishops attended the 
Council of Aries in 314 A.D., of Sardica in 347 A.D., 
and of Ariminum in 360 A.D. We know that with 
such leaders as St. Patrick among the Irish, St. 
Ninian in the North, and St. Columba in Scotland, 
the spiritual life of the inhabitants of these islands 
could not have been altogether at a low ebb. At 
the same time, the troubled political conditions 
that prevailed, and the successive invasions of the 
Picts, the Jutes, and the Saxons (rendering an 
established and settled form of government hopeless 
and impracticable), militated severely against such 
religious growth as might otherwise have been 

Gradually the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were 
formed under the name of the Heptarchy ; but, un- 
fortunately, the civil improvement of the country was 
disastrous to the ancient British Church. During the 
1 50 years' struggle, the Britons were driven further 
and further westward ; prelates, priests, and people 
were destroyed together by fire and sword ; and 
the Christian sanctuaries were demolished. 

Towards the close of the sixth century we find 


that the great city of Rome had declined in power 
owing to the transfer of the seat of government to 
Constantinople, and the Bishop of Rome, being 
the only important person remaining in residence, 
became its virtual ruler. The story of Gregory, 
then archdeacon, and the English slaves, is told by 
Bede ("Eccl. Hist.," bk. ii. c. i). The pagan condi- 
tion of the " Angles," as explained to him at that 
time, remained in his memory, and when, a few 
years later, he succeeded to the papal chair, he sent 
over some monks under Augustine to preach the 
gospel of Christ. 

While it is perfectly true that the majority of 
the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of our country were 
heathens at the time when Augustine landed on 
our shores, yet it must be remembered that many 
circumstances combined to render them peculiarly 
receptive of Christian teaching. There was the 
germ, in their own superstitions, of a belief in a 
Supreme Being, which would be certain to spring 
forth when the cult of Woden, the god of slaughter, 
gave place to the teaching of Jesus Christ. Again, 
the feeling of contempt for the religion of the race 
they had conquered and persecuted (which led them 
to turn a deaf ear to the preaching of the British 
bishops and priests) was considerably modified by 
the fact that this same Christianity was held by the 
Goths in Italy, Spain, and Southern France ; by the 
Lombards and the Franks ; and by the Romans, who 
were objects of admiration and respect among all the 
barbarian races. Once more, the fact that many of 
the pagan Saxons, who came over as warriors, had 
married British wives, renders it certain that a 


powerful religious influence in the direction of 
Christian truth must have been quietly working its 
way, and preparing the soil for the germination of 
the seed to be sown by the foreign missionaries. 

Of the early life of Augustine nothing is known. 
He appears to have succeeded Gregory (who became 
Bishop of Rome in 590 A.D.) as Prior of the Bene- 
dictine Monastery of St. Andrew, in that city ; and 
to have been at the time somewhat advanced in 

Accompanied by forty monks (regular and secu- 
lar), Augustine set forth in 596 A.D. to undertake 
the task of converting the inhabitants of the British 
Isles. The party rapidly traversed the northern 
portion of Italy, crossed the Gallic Alps, and arrived 
in Provence. Here they began to lose heart and 
courage. They were surprised to find an unkindly 
spirit manifested by the French, and the authority 
of the Bishop of Rome set at naught. Realizing 
that their difficulties had commenced, and that 
opposition had arisen, before they had even reached 
their destination, the whole party became so dis- 
heartened and alarmed that Augustine returned to 
Gregory, seeking permission to abandon the enter- 

We find in this incident the first indication of 
the fact, which is strikingly brought out in his sub- 
sequent career, that Augustine was by no means a 
master-mind. Had he been a man of more power- 
ful character, he would have been able to dispel 
the fears of his companions, and to encourage them 
by pointing out the magnitude of the work that 
lay before them, and the necessity of overcoming, 


instead of being overcome by, the trials that must 
of necessity await them in the accomplishment of 
the task they had undertaken. 

Gregory, who had manfully risen above difficulties 
far greater than those encountered by the mission- 
aries, despatched Augustine to his timid companions, 
bearing a letter in which the following sentences 
occur : " Forasmuch as it were better not to begin 
a good work than to think of desisting from that 
which has been begun, it behoves you, my beloved 
sons, to accomplish the good work on which, by 
the help of the Lord, you have entered. Let not, 
therefore, the toil of the journey, nor the tongues 
of evil-speaking men, deter you ; but with all 
possible earnestness and zeal, perform that which, 
by God's direction, you have undertaken ; being 
assured that much labour is followed by greater 
eternal reward. When Augustine, your leader, 
returns, humbly obey him in all things. . . ." 
(Bede, "Eccl. Hist," bk. i. c. 23). 

At length, after many vicissitudes, the missionary 
band arrived in England early in 597 A.D. They 
landed in the Isle of Thanet, probably at Ebbsfleet, 
where they remained in a state of considerable 
trepidation until the interpreters whom they had 
sent to King Ethelbert returned. The message 
they received, however, dispelled all their fears, and 
preparations were made for an interview. 

Ethelbert, King of Kent (one of the seven divi- 
sions of the Heptarchy), was a noble-hearted, liberal- 
minded, intelligent man. He had married Bertha, 
daughter of Charibert, King of Paris, who was 
herself an earnest Christian. It had been stipulated, 


as a condition of her marriage, that she should 
enjoy the free exercise of her religion, and she 
came to England attended by her chaplain, Luid- 
hard, formerly Bishop of Senlis, a man of consider- 
able age. His influence at the court was by no 
means slight, and helped, together with the gentle 
piety of his royal mistress, to induce the household 
to view with favour the religion of their queen. He 
received from Ethelbert an old Roman (or British) 
church in which to hold services, consecrated it 
afresh, and named it after St. Martin. The church 
(or at least a portion of it) is still standing, a silent 
witness to the power of Christ's teaching for sixteen 
centuries in the land. 

In due course it was announced to Augustine 
that the king would receive the missionaries, but 
that the meeting must take place in the open air. 
He did not conceal his fear that otherwise recourse 
might be had to magical arts, and his judgment 
be unduly biassed. 

A procession was accordingly formed, at the head 
of which walked Augustine, who is described as a 
tall, powerfully built, swarthy-complexioned man, 
preceded by a crucifer bearing a silver cross (the 
crucifix did not at that time exist, its first appear- 
ance dating from the close of the seventh century) ; 
then came an oil-painting representing the figure 
of our Blessed Lord, behind which followed the 
brethren in order. Slowly and solemnly marched 
the little band along the shores of Pegwell Bay, 
chanting in unison one of those solemn litanies in- 
troduced from the Eastern Church, which must have 
riveted the attention, and impressed the minds, of 


those who were waiting with anxious and curious 
expectancy for the arrival of these strangers. The 
king, accompanied by the queen, and surrounded 
by his soldiers and wise men, was seated under an 
ancient oak. The site of what is believed to have 
been the identical tree is marked by a granite 
cross, close to the village of Cliffsend. 

Ethelbert received the missionaries with courteous 
dignity, and listened with attention to the sermon 
which Augustine preached, by means of interpreters, 
wherein he told "how the merciful Jesus, by His 
own Passion, redeemed this guilty world, and opened 
to believing men an entrance into the kingdom of 
heaven." The king's reply is interesting. "Very 
fair," he said, " are the words you have uttered and 
the promises you make. But to us these things are 
new, and their full meaning I do not understand. 
I am by no means prepared to assent to proposals 
which imply the renunciation of customs to which, 
with the whole English race, I have hitherto adhered. 
But you have come from far. You are strangers. 
And I clearly perceive that your sole wish and 
only object is to communicate to us what you 
believe to be good and true. You shall not be 
molested. You shall be hospitably entertained. 
We will make provision for your maintenance, and 
we do not prohibit you from uniting to your society 
any persons whom you may persuade to embrace 
your faith" (Bede, "Eccl. Hist," bk. i. c. 25). 

Augustine and his companions settled in Canter- 
bury. They lived in primitive simplicity, "apply- 
ing themselves to frequent prayer, watching, and 
fasting ; preaching the Word of life to as many as 


would hear them ; receiving only their necessary 
food from those they taught ; living in all respects 
conformably to what they prescribed for others, and 
being always disposed to suffer any adversity, and 
even to die, for the truth which they preached. In 
short, several believed and were baptized, admiring 
the simplicity of their innocent life, and the sweet- 
ness of their heavenly doctrine." 

At length, on the 2nd of June, 597 A.D., being 
the feast of Whitsunday, Ethelbert openly declared 
himself a Christian, and received the Sacrament 
of Baptism. About the same time the Witan 
assembled, at which the counsellors and wise men 
concurred with the king in enacting what are called 
the " Dooms of Ethelbert." These laws recognized 
Christianity and the Christian priesthood, and 
established the Church in the kingdom of Kent. 
This official acknowledgment of the faith on the 
part of the king and his counsellors had such an 
effect upon the people that on the following Christ- 
mas Day ten thousand persons were baptized. 

Such an accession of numbers required an increase 
both of Church accommodation and of clergy. The 
former was provided by the liberality of the king, 
who not only gave up his palace at Canterbury as a 
residence for Augustine, but also, on the site of an 
ancient church close by, laid the foundation of the 
cathedral, which has ever since borne the name of 
Christ's Church. He endowed a monastery, originally 
called after St. Peter and St. Paul ; but its name was 
subsequently changed, and as the Missionary College 
of St. Augustine, it still stands as a blessing to the 
Church of which Augustine was the first archbishop. 


For additional clergy application was made to 
Gregory, who sent a further band of missionaries with 
valuable gifts, consisting of altar-cloths, vestments, 
and books. Among the new arrivals were Mellitus, 
afterwards Bishop of London ; Justus, Bishop of 
Rochester (both of whom succeeded to the primacy); 
and Paulinus, afterwards Archbishop of York. 

In 597 A.D. Augustine repaired to France in ac- 
cordance with instructions from Gregory, and was 
consecrated by Vergilius, Archishop of Aries, to 
be "Bishop of the English," that he might be at 
liberty to fix his see either in London or Canter- 
bury, or in whatever part of the country he deemed 
advisable. Immediately on his return he set about 
the organization of a complete ecclesiastical scheme 
for the whole country. Twelve bishoprics were to 
be founded in the south of England. Twelve more 
were to form a northern province. There was to 
be a metropolitan see at York, but it was to be 
subject to Augustine's supremacy. He did not, 
however, live to carry out the plan, although it served 
as a basis for the future framework of the Church. 

A difficult question of administration soon pre- 
sented itself to Augustine for solution, and he im- 
mediately sought counsel from Gregory. Being 
perplexed at the differences in the customs ruling 
in various Churches, he was enjoined, in preparing 
a liturgy for the Anglican Church, not to tie himself 
down to the Roman ritual, or of the Gallican, or to 
any other, but to select out of every Church what 
is pious, religious, and right ; for " things are not 
to be valued on account of places, but places for 
the good things they contain." 


Another point which was submitted for advice 
was this : " How are we to deal with the bishops 
of France and Britain ? " Writing doubtless in 
ignorance of the deep-rooted animosity which 
divided Briton and Saxon, Gregory ordered that 
the new archiepiscopate in Ethelbert's dominions 
should control not only all bishops consecrated by 
Augustine, or by the future Archbishop of York, 
but also all the priests of Britain. "Over the 
bishops of France," the letter runs, "we give you 
no authority, because the Bishop of Aries received 
the pall in ancient times from my predecessor, 
and we ought by no means to deprive him of the 
authority he has received ; . . . but as for all the 
bishops of Britain, we commit them to your care, 
that the unlearned may be taught, the feeble 
strengthened by persuasion, and the perverse cor- 
rected by authority" (Bede, " Eccl. Hist.," bk. i. c. 27). 

Having received from Gregory the coveted dis- 
tinction of the pallium, and being fortified by the 
instructions given him in the letter referred to, 
Augustine determined at once to call upon the 
British bishops to acknowledge him in the character 
of Metropolitan, and to submit to his supremacy. 

It must be remembered that for three hundred and 
fifty years or more the Church in Britain had kept the 
faith unaided by popes or papal delegates. It knew 
nothing of Rome, but it had cause to know and dis- 
trust the Saxon princes who were Rome's present 
allies. No slight measure of gentleness, forbearance, 
and tact was needed if Augustine was to be suc- 
cessful in uniting and consolidating, under the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, the two branches (one 


recently implanted from abroad, the other the ancient 
religion of the nation) of the Holy Catholic Church. 

Unfortunately, as we shall see, neither the educa- 
tion nor the temper of Augustine fitted him for so 
difficult and delicate a position. A meeting was 
arranged at a place called Augustine's Oak (probably 
at Austcliffe on the Severn). The new archbishop 
commenced by calling upon the representatives of 
the Celtic Church to unite with him in the conver- 
sion of the heathen, a duty which was of course 
admitted by all. And then, assuming without proof 
that he was right and they were wrong, he de- 
manded, as the condition of such fellowship, the 
surrender of certain principles, and the renunciation 
of certain practices, which were the peculiarities of 
the Celtic Churches, and were, as marks of their 
independence, especially dear to them. 

For example, the question arose as to the day 
on which Easter should be kept. The British 
bishops adhered to the old Western rule laid down 
at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., by which they 
kept the festival of the Resurrection on the I4th 
day of the Paschal moon, whether it fell on a 
Sunday or not. Augustine, on the other hand, 
declared in favour of the practice, which had, not 
long before, been adopted by the Roman Church 
(in order to effect a uniformity with the Church 
of Alexandria), of observing the Sunday following 
the I4th day of the Paschal moon (if the I4th fell 
on a Sunday) as the Easter festival. He demanded 
that the British bishops should at once alter their 
usage, but they were inflexible. Augustine remon- 
strated, exhorted, grew angry, and sternly rebuked 


them. He then attempted to win them over by 
the cure of a blind man whom they had previously 
attempted, in vain, to heal. 

A second conference was arranged for a later 
date. Meanwhile a preliminary meeting of the 
British bishops was held. On the advice of a holy 
and learned anchorite, it was decided that if Augus- 
tine showed himself to be possessed of the spirit 
of Christian humility by rising to receive them, 
they were to agree to his proposals, and accept 
him as their leader. They came, and Augustine 
received them seated. Thereupon they refused to 
concede any one point of the three laid down, viz. 
the observance of Easter according to the Roman 
computation, the adoption of the Roman form of 
triple immersion in Baptism, and the uniting with 
him in evangelizing the Saxons. At this Augustine 
lost his temper, and parted from them, predicting 
that "they who refused to show their neighbours 
the way of life should by them be put to death." 

Augustine now returned to Canterbury, where he 
was enabled to pursue, for the short remainder of his 
life, the even tenor of his way, in a sphere more suited 
to his temper, his capacities, and his many virtues. 

In considering his arrogance towards the repre- 
sentatives of the British Church, we must bear in 
mind that he failed to appreciate their position and 
learning. He regarded them as semi-barbarians, 
and despised them on account of their subjection 
to the pagan Saxons. He was, moreover, led away 
by the unwarrantable assumption of authority over 
the British Church which Gregory claimed, an as- 
sumption totally opposed to the decrees of the 


Council of Ephesus, which stipulated that "no 
bishop shall occupy another province that has not 
been subject to him from the beginning." 

Augustine, with all his faults among which may 
be included his somewhat high-handed and irregular 
proceeding in nominating, appointing, and conse- 
crating his successor during his own lifetime, in con- 
travention of the decrees of the Councils of Nicaea 
and Antioch was greatly revered and beloved by 
his contemporaries. He died in 604 A.D., and was 
buried near the unfinished Church of St. Peter and 
St. Paul, in the ground now occupied by the Kent 
and Canterbury Hospital. 

Augustine's visit to England was really but one 
episode in a record of missionary enterprise extend- 
ing over a period of upwards of a century. The 
actual area of his success was limited. Under his 
leadership Kent and Essex became for a time 
Christian settlements, and a work in Northumber- 
land, commenced by his companion Paulinus, flour- 
ished for a short period, until it was swept away 
when the reigning dynasty was ousted by the 
heathen Penda. At the same time, a peculiar 
interest attaches to this Roman mission in that it 
laid the foundation of our existing ecclesiastical 
organization. Other missionaries, natives of these 
islands, shared in the glory of winning converts to 
Christianity ; but Gregory and Augustine inaugu- 
rated the system by which, when resuscitated by 
Theodore, those converts became the body of the 
Anglican Church, which has held its position in 
unbroken succession to the present day, and still 
flourishes, as essentially the Church of the nation. 



THEODORE (669-690 A.D.). 

AUGUSTINE was succeeded in the primacy by Lau- 
rentius, who had accompanied him on his mission 
to King Ethelbert in 597 A.D. Within a few years 
the kingdoms of Kent and Essex relapsed into 
paganism, but by influences which Bede connects 
with supernatural occurrences, although to us they 
seem to have been of the nature of " pious frauds," 
the new king, Eadbald, was prevailed upon to em- 
brace the Christian faith, and his example was soon 
followed by his subjects. Paulinus, who became 
the first Archbishop of York, had a temporary 
success in the north ; but shortly after the death of 
Edwin a pagan reaction set in, and within sixty 
years of the landing of Augustine the visible 
results of the labours of the Roman missionaries 
had to a great extent disappeared. 

Meanwhile the work of Christianizing the north 
was steadily proceeding under St. Aidan and other 
British preachers. In course of time the two 
missionary systems came into collision. The 
British bishops still adhered to the customs and 


practices which had excited the anger of Augustine ; 
but the question at issue was finally settled at the 
Synod of Streanaeshalc (Whitby), in 664 A.D., when 
the pretensions of the papacy won the victory for 
the foreign ritual, and the acceptance of the Roman 
method of observing Easter prepared England for a 
definite system of Church order and uniformity such 
as Gregory had contemplated. 

The next event of importance in the religious 
history of this country was the consolidation of 
the independent Heptarchic sees into a National 
Church. We shall deal with this at some length 
in the present chapter. 

Frithona, the first Saxon Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, who is better known by his adopted Latin 
appellation Deusdedit, died in 664 A.D. The kings 
of Northumbria and Kent selected Wighard as his 
successor, and sent him to Rome for consecration, but 
he died shortly after his arrival. The see of Canter- 
bury having, from one cause or another, been vacant 
for nearly four years, the kings agreed to leave 
the choice of Wighard's successor in the hands of 
Pope Vitalian. The Bishop of Rome, well aware of 
the conditions of ecclesiastical life in Northumbria, 
where Wilfrid and Chad were rival bishops of York, 
realized that it would be imprudent to send an 
Italian to the metropolitical see of the south. He 
knew no Englishman suitable for the post. At 
length he fixed his choice upon an African, Hadrian 
by name. Hadrian was a learned monk, and he 
declined the offer, desiring to continue to devote 
himself to his books ; but he recommended his 
friend Theodore, a native of Tarsus, who was 


consecrated at Rome in March, 668 A.D. This is the 
first instance of the direct consecration of an arch- 
bishop for the British Isles by the Roman pontiff, 
and after Theodore there was not another Roman 
archbishop for three hundred and fifty years, all 
who succeeded him being Englishmen. After a 
year's journey, Theodore, accompanied by Hadrian, 
and also by Benedict Biscop, whose name is famous 
both as a builder of churches and as a collector of 
literary treasures, arrived in England in May, 
669 A.D., and on the 2/th day of the same month 
was installed in St. Augustine's chair as seventh 
Archbishop of Canterbury, amidst great rejoicings. 
He was then sixty-six years of age, but he entered 
with all the ardour of youth upon the vigorous 
discharge of his duties, and the development of 
that complete system of ecclesiastical organization 
which has made his memory famous. 

Immediately after his enthronement the new 
primate made a general visitation of his province, 
inspecting the monasteries, establishing schools, 
and correcting abuses. He was welcomed every- 
where, both by the princes and nobles and by the 
clergy. He returned to Canterbury when his tour 
was ended, resolved to accomplish two aims ; first, 
to lay the foundation of what we now call the 
parochial system, and secondly, to increase the 

At that date the Church of England, whether we 
turn to the Celtic Churches, or to those which were 
the outcome of St. Augustine's mission, consisted 
simply of a number of missionary centres. From 
these the clergy went forth to preach the gospel in 


the towns and outlying hamlets, and even to the 
remote caves of the bandits and outlaws, not 
unfrequently being absent for weeks at a time. But 
besides the clergy who were engaged in missionary 
labours, there were others who were attached to 
the households of the princes and the thanes, in 
the capacity of private chaplains. It was on this 
foundation that Theodore built his plan for the 
formation of separate parishes, where the priest 
would be resident among his people, and the preach- 
ing of the Word and administration of the sacra- 
ments could be carried on without interruption. 
He persuaded the nobles and landed proprietors to 
assign to their former chaplains an independent 
position, to erect churches in the centre of their 
estates, and to provide endowments by grants of 
land, or fixed charges upon their properties. In 
order to encourage the landowners to do this syste- 
matically, Theodore arranged that those who agreed 
to carry out the scheme should have the right of 
selecting their resident parish clergyman ; and we 
thus trace the origin of our present system of private 
patronage, and of ecclesiastical districts. It is in- 
teresting to notice that the Church, as has been 
almost universally the case throughout her history, 
set the example which was subsequently followed by 
the secular government. Green, in his " History of 
the English People," says, " The regular subordina- 
tion of priest to bishop and of bishop to primate, 
in the administration of the Church, supplied a 
mould on which the civil organization of the State 
quickly shaped itself." And " it was the ecclesias- 
tical synods which by their example led the way 


to our National Parliament, as it was the canons 
enacted in such synods which led the way to a 
national system of law." 

In carrying out his scheme for the extension of 
the episcopate, Theodore was equally vigorous, and, 
notwithstanding considerable opposition, was equally 
successful. Within a few years he constituted seven- 
teen bishoprics where there had formerly been only 
nine. Kent, Essex, and Sussex were considered to 
be sufficiently provided with episcopal supervision, 
and were not interfered with. East Anglia had the 
see of Elmham added to that of Dunwich ; Wessex 
was in future to become two dioceses, Winchester 
and Sherborne ; and the great midland province 
of Mercia was now divided into five sections, with 
the bishops' seats at Lichfield, Hereford, Worcester, 
Leicester, and Lindsey. In Northumbria the primate 
encountered the greatest opposition, but finally the 
gigantic diocese of York was made into four dioceses 
those of Hexham, Whithern, and Lindisfarne. 

When visiting Northumbria soon after his en- 
thronement (for at that time York was not a metro- 
politan see, and the whole of England was in the 
province of Canterbury), Theodore exercised his 
authority by deposing Ceadda, or Chad, and re- 
placing Wilfrid. Wilfrid had been consecrated in 
France to the see of York in 664 A.D., but by his 
arrogance at the Council of Whitby, and his pro- 
longed residence abroad, he had alienated the affec- 
tion and popularity which had been at first extended 
to him. Chad was a monk belonging to the monas- 
tery of Lastingham, and the people of Northumbria 
petitioned their king, Oswy, that Chad might be 


their bishop. The king agreed, whereupon Chad, 
after his consecration at Winchester, proceeded 
north, and threw himself heart and soul into his 
episcopal work. When Wilfrid returned to Britain, 
he found his rival on the spot ; but, realizing that 
he had lost favour with the Northumbrians, he con- 
tented himself with administering the diocese of 
Canterbury between the death of Deusdedit and 
the arrival of Theodore. On being restored to 
the temporalities of the see of York, Wilfrid im- 
mediately set to work to restore the cathedral, 
which he found in a dilapidated condition. A 
reaction set in in his favour to such an extent that 
vast sums of money were left to him. He imme- 
diately adopted an almost royal state, with princely 
retinues, and the most extravagant expenditure, 
until he excited the enmity of Ecgfrid the king, on 
account of his opposition to the marriage with 
Irminburga, after the king had separated from his 
first wife, Etheldreda. 

Such was the state of affairs in the north when 
Archbishop Theodore proposed the subdivision of 
the diocese of Northumbria. Wilfrid could not, on 
ecclesiastical grounds, oppose the scheme ; but, un- 
willing to diminish his pomp and splendour, or to 
relinquish his power, he resisted the primate, who 
thereupon, with the support of the court behind 
him, uttered a sentence of deposition upon Wilfrid, 
and consecrated Bosa as his successor, in the year 
678 A.D. 

The Bishop of York, indignant at this treatment, 
repaired to Rome, where he appealed against the 
decision. Naturally the Bishop of Rome, desirous 


above all things of establishing a claim to exercise 
jurisdiction and authority in the English Church, 
decided in Wilfrid's favour. But the country was 
in no mood to recognise the interference of the 
papacy in her ecclesiastical affairs. Consequently, 
when Wilfrid returned, and produced the demand 
of Pope Agatho that he should be reinstated in his 
office and privileges, the king convened a council 
of the nobility and clergy of his kingdom, and it 
was unanimously determined that the appeal to 
Rome was a public offence, and that the papal 
letters were an insult to the crown and nation. 
Wilfrid was condemned to nine months' imprison- 
ment, and became for many years a wandering 

The pope's mandate, threatening excommunica- 
tion to all who disobeyed it, was disregarded and 
treated with utter indifference by Archbishop Theo- 
dore. This fact is interesting, because it shows that 
the principle of Roman dictation in the affairs of the 
Church of England was firmly resisted in the early 
days of its attempted enforcement ; and when, later 
on, we find that the Bishop of Rome did exert his 
authority, it was because, by his alliance with the 
sovereign, he proved too strong for our Church 
rulers to resist, although in almost every case the 
submission was made under protest. 

Besides the two great schemes, on the accomplish- 
ment of which Theodore had set his heart, viz. the 
development of the parochial system, and the exten- 
sion of the episcopate, it was part of his plan to 
introduce synodical action into the Church. His 
aim was to hold synods twice in every year, but in 


this he does not appear to have succeeded. He 
managed, however, to convene two important 
councils during his episcopate. 

The first was held on September 24, 673 A.D., at 
Hertford, and was attended by all the leading 
bishops. Wilfrid, Bishop of York, was represented 
by two of his clergy. 

The archbishop first asked those assembled if they 
would defer to whatever was decreed canonically 
and of old by the fathers. On their expressing a 
unanimous assent, he submitted ten articles from a 
collection of canons that had been approved by the 
Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, and accepted by 
the Western Church. These were adapted, after 
careful discussion, to the needs of the English 
Church, and all the prelates and clergy present 
bound themselves by signing their names to the 
draft, to observe the rules, which were as follows : 

1. That there should be uniformity in keeping 
Easter on the Sunday after the I4th day of the 
first month. 

2. That no bishop should intrude into another's 

3. That no bishop should disturb the monasteries, 
or seize their. property. 

4. That monks should not move from one 
monastery to another without leave of their own 

5. That the clergy should not go from their 
diocese without leave, nor be received in another 
diocese without commendatory letters from their 
former bishop. 

6. That bishops and clergy, when travelling, 


should not presume to officiate without the licence 
of the bishop in whose diocese they may be. 

7. That a yearly synod should be held, on 
August i, at Clofeshoch (or Cloveshoo). 

8. That no bishop, .through ambition, should try 
to take precedence of another ; but that each should 
observe the time and order of his consecration. 

9. That, as the number of the faithful increased, 
bishops should be multiplied. 

10. That marriages should not be made within 
the prohibited degrees ; that no divorce, except as 
the gospel teaches, should be' permitted ; and that 
no one who has divorced his wife may marry again. 

It was immediately after this council that Theo- 
dore set him seriously to work to carry out the sub- 
division of the dioceses, of which mention has been 
made above. 

Theodore, when he disregarded the anathema of 
the Bishop of Rome, consequent on his refusing to 
accede to the papal demand for reinstating Wilfrid, 
was equally regardless of the pope's wish that he 
should attend the third Council of Constantinople, 
in 680 A.D., which had been convened to condemn 
the Monothelite heresy i.e. the heresy which denied 
the existence of two wills, the human and the Divine, 
in our Blessed Lord. 

He considered it more important to convene a 
council in England, in order to ascertain the exact 
faith held by the Church at home, in reference to 
the various heresies that had arisen in other parts 
of the Christian world. The synod was held at 
Hatfield, on September 17, 680 A.D. The arch- 
bishop caused the proceedings to be taken down 


in writing, and the document is preserved for us 
in Bede's "Ecclesiastical History," iv. 17. After 
setting forth what the assembled prelates held as 
the true faith of the Catholic Church in regard to the 
doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the following passage 
occurs : " We have received the five holy and general 
councils of the blessed fathers acceptable to God ; 
that is, of the three hundred and eighteen bishops 
who were assembled at Nicaea (325 A.D.), against the 
most impious Arius and his tenets ; and that at Con- 
stantinople (381 A.D.) of the one hundred and fifty, 
against the madness of Macedonius and Eudoxius 
and their tenets; and that first at Ephesus (431 
A.D.) of the two hundred, against the most wicked 
Nestorius and his tenets ; and that at Chalcedon 
(451 A.D.) of the six hundred and thirty, against 
Eutyches and Nestorius and their tenets ; and again 
at Constantinople (553 A.D.), in a fifth council, in the 
reign of Justinian the younger, against Theodorus 
and the Epistles of Theodoret and Ibas, and their 
tenets, against Cyril." These five councils are still 
the authority for the faith of the Church in Britain, 
as they had been of the Celtic Church long before 
the coming of Theodore. 

In addition to the active and administrative work 
of Archbishop Theodore, which we have briefly 
described, his name is almost equally famous as 
the founder of Anglo-Saxon scholarship and litera- 
ture. Within a veiy short time after his enthrone- 
ment at Canterbury, he took possession of St. 
Augustine's monastery, and made it a school of 
learning. In his friend Hadrian Theodore found 
an able coadjutor. He is described by William of 


Malmesbury as "a fountain of letters and a river 
of arts." These great men understood the impor- 
tance of encouraging a learned clergy, and they 
found the English people eager to be instructed. 
Bede tells us ("Eccl. Hist.," iv. 2) how "both of 
them, being well read both in sacred and in secular 
literature, gathered a crowd of disciples, and there 
daily flowed from them rivers of knowledge to water 
the hearts of their hearers ; and, together with the 
books of Holy Writ, they also taught them the arts 
of ecclesiastical poetry, astronomy, and arithmetic." 
Through their influence all the larger and better 
monasteries, as well as some of the convents, became 
seminaries of learning. In the next century English 
scholars, such as Bede and Alcuin, had won a 
European reputation, and the skill of our monastic 
copyists became proverbial. " In a single century 
England became known as a fountain of light, as 
a land of learned men, devout and unwearied 
missions, of strong, rich, and pious kings " (Stubbs, 
"Const. Hist," i. 219). Theodore, who had been 
famous as a Greek divine before he came to England, 
introduced into this country a class of studies almost 
unknown in Western Christendom. He obtained 
from the East a large number of Greek copies of 
the Gospels, two of which are still extant ; one, being 
Codex E, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and 
the other is preserved at Corpus Christi College, 

Archbishop Theodore held a high position as an 
author. His "Penitential" is a remarkable book, 
not so much on the ground that it was the first 
work of the kind that had ever appeared, which 


was not the case, but because it was the earliest of 
the "libelli pcenitentiales " that was published by 
authority in the Western Church, and was the 
foundation on which other books of the same nature 
were based, such as those issued by Bede and by 
Egbert. His rules and regulations concerning 
penance, confession, Church discipline, etc., were 
couched in a far more severe strain than would 
be approved in those days, but were, perhaps, well 
suited to the circumstances of histories. 

The career of the octogenarian archbishop was 
now drawing rapidly to a close, and most of the aims 
which Theodore had set before himself had been 
accomplished. The metropolitan authority of the 
see of Canterbury was universally acknowledged ; 
the largest dioceses had been divided ; parishes had 
begun to be arranged, and in some cases parish 
boundaries had been settled ; parochial churches 
had been everywhere erected ; moral discipline 
was enforced ; the foundation had been laid for a 
thorough system of learning and scholarship, while 
the state of the country under Theodore's archie- 
piscopate is thus described by Bede (iv. 2) : " Happier 
times than these never were since the English came 
into Britain ; for their kings were brave men and 
good Christians, and while, by the terror of their 
arms, the barbarians were kept in check, the minds 
of men were bent upon the joys of the heavenly 
kingdom which had just been revealed to them ; 
and every one who desired instruction in the sacred 
Scriptures had masters at hand to instruct him." 

Before his death, Theodore sought to be recon- 
ciled with Wilfrid. Since his deposition from the 


see of Northumbria, the latter had found employ- 
ment for his active and zealous mind in the conver- 
sion of Sussex, the only kingdom of the Heptarchy 
which, up to this time, adhered to paganism. When, 
in a season of scarcity, he taught the natives how to 
catch fish, he was hailed with joy as their deliverer, 
and soon established a bishopric at Selsey, where 
he erected a cathedral, and established a chapter of 
secular canons. In the reign of William the Con- 
queror the cathedral was removed to Chichester, 
which became the head-quarters of the bishops of 
that county from that time. At length, shortly 
before the death of Theodore, a meeting with 
Wilfrid was effected through the instrumentality of 
Erkenwald, Bishop of London ; and, in consequence 
of the influence of the archbishop with Alfrid, the 
successor of Ecgfrid in the throne of Northumbria, 
Wilfrid was reinstated as bishop of the northern 

Theodore died on September 19, 690 A.D., at 
the age of eighty-seven, and was buried by the side 
of his predecessors in the porch of St. Augustine's. 
He was a prelate more powerful in many ways than 
his predecessor, St. Augustine, and was possessed 
of a greater amount of tact, and had his temper 
under better control. There is little doubt that, 
with the example of the first Archbishop of Canter- 
bury before him, he would have nominated Wilfrid 
to be his successor, had he considered him a fit 
person for the post. But the requisites for so 
responsible a position were energy and sound judg- 
ment. The northern prelate had more than enough 
of the first, but was lamentably deficient in the 


second. And so the aged primate, whose kindly 
nature showed itself in many ways, notably when 
he obtained for Chad (who retired without a murmur 
in favour of Wilfrid, under circumstances already 
mentioned) the see of Lichfield, determined to do 
his utmost to benefit the able, though unwise, 
bishop, by procuring his reappointment to the 
Northumbrian see. 

To Theodore we owe the change in the character 
of the English Church, that he raised it from the 
position of a missionary station into a completely 
organized and thoroughly consolidated National 




ANSELM (I093-II09 A.D.). 

THE effect of Theodore's work in bringing about a 
unification of the English Church under a recognised 
head, and organized upon a uniform plan, soon 
made itself felt throughout the country. The clergy 
became the advisers of the people in temporal as 
well as spiritual affairs, and no important laws were 
made without consulting them. The bishops sat 
side by side with the nobles in the Witan to adjudi- 
cate upon the social, political, and domestic needs of 
the nation ; and the unity of the Church frequently 
enabled her authorities to prevent strife, and even 
bloodshed, when quarrels arose between the different 

The religious enthusiasm which arose at this time 
found an outlet in the growth of the monastic system, 
and the increase of pilgrimages. The instances of 
Anglo-Saxon princes and princesses who exchanged 
the court for the cloister are too numerous to be 
detailed. Ceolwulf of Northumbria, about 725 A.D., 
is said to have been the eighth king who assumed 
the garb of a monk. 

In 747 A.D. an important council was held at 
Cloveshoo, at which thirty canons were passed. It 


By permission of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 



was enacted that the people should learn the Creed 
and the Lord's Prayer, and be instructed in the 
nature of the sacraments ; prayers for the dead 
were to be offered ; and the bishops were to visit 
their dioceses annually. A general conformity with 
the usages of Rome was enjoined, but no submission 
to papal authority was sanctioned, it being expressly 
stated that the highest court of appeal in ecclesias- 
tical matters was to the archbishop in synod. 

In 787 A.D. this submission to the pope was 
rendered by Offa, King of Mercia, in furtherance 
of his own ambition. Being anxious to curtail the 
dignity and authority of the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, he established a new archiepiscopal see at 
Lichfield, which, however, only existed for twenty 
years. To effect this, and to obtain a pall for the 
new metropolitan, he gave enormous bribes to the 
papal see. 

The religious prosperity of England was wrecked 
during the ninth century by the Danish invasion. 
Bishops and clergy fled from their benefices, and 
the religious houses were for the most part pillaged 
and destroyed. After the defeat of the invaders 
by Alfred at Ethandune, in 878 A.D., the restoration 
of the Church and her work went on rapidly, and 
many of the Danes were converted to Christianity. 

Throughout the ninth and tenth centuries the 
claims of Roman supremacy were put forward when- 
ever opportunity offered ; but it is significant that 
in no instance was this state of things recognised 
or accepted at the many synods of the Anglican 
Church during that period. 

The conquest of England by William of Nor- 


mandy introduced a new era in the history of the 
Church. In Anglo-Saxon times the relations of 
Church and State were for the most part of a 
friendly nature. One of William's first acts was, with 
the help of the papal legates sent by Gregory VI L, 
to depose Stigand from the archbishopric of Canter- 
bury, and to replace him by Lanfranc. The powers 
and privileges of the bishops were curtailed. The 
papal claims upon the allegiance of the Church were 
encouraged by the king, although he did not scruple 
to resist the pope where his own interests were 
concerned. We see this in William's reply to the 
demand that he should do homage to Gregory. 
" Homage to thee," he said, " I have not chosen, 
neither do I choose to do. I never made a promise 
to that effect ; neither do I find that it was ever 
performed by my predecessors to thine." 

Lanfranc, who followed the example of his royal 
master with unfailing complaisance in sacrificing 
the liberty of the clergy to the king's authority, as 
well as in disregarding papal admonitions, was suc- 
ceeded by Anselm in 1093 A.D. 

Anselm was born at Aosta, a city of Piedmont, 
in 1033 A.D., of noble parents, and was one of the 
most remarkable men of his age. The influence 
of his gentle and pious mother induced him, when 
fifteen years old, to apply for admission into a 
monastery. On his mother's death he was led into 
dissipation by the profligate example of his father ; 
but later on his old desire regained its ascendency, 
and he assumed the cowl at the monastery of Bee 
when in his twenty-seventh year. 

He was elected Prior of Bee in 1066 A.D., on the 


elevation of Lanfranc to be Abbot of Caen, and 
he held the office until the death of Herluin, the 
Abbot of Bee, in 1078 A.D. He was then unani- 
mously chosen by the monks to fill the vacant office. 
" Upon this Anselm threw himself upon the ground, 
and, with his face towards the earth, sobbed out 
his petition to the brethren, that they would not 
force upon him a trust so onerous. Whereupon 
the brothers followed his example ; they also threw 
themselves upon the ground, and, prostrate on the 
earth, they implored their prior to have compassion 
upon the establishment and upon themselves. It 
was an awkward position in which to carry on a 
debate, and we must presume that they remained 
upon the ground until they fell asleep. When they 
awoke they must have been too much fatigued to 
proceed further in the business, and, on several oc- 
casions, the scene was re-enacted, until at length the 
petitions of the brethren prevailed " (Hook's " Lives 
of the Archbishops," vol. ii. p. 178). 

The archbishopric of Canterbury remained vacant 
nearly four years after the death of Lanfranc, and 
William Rufus, with the high-handed and dishonour- 
able exercise of the royal prerogative which was not 
unknown in the eleventh century, applied the emolu- 
ments to his own purposes. It is said that at one 
time he was appropriating the revenues of three 
bishoprics and thirteen abbeys. 

After refusing several invitations to visit England, 
Anselm, towards whom all eyes were turned as the 
future primate, was at last prevailed upon to visit 
the Earl of Chester, an old acquaintance, in his 
illness. The king received Anselm with cordiality, 


and made him sit at the right hand of the throne, 
in the place which had always been occupied by 
Lanfranc. But at the very moment when the 
appointment to the archbishopric was expected, 
Anselm drew upon himself the displeasure of the 
king by upbraiding him for his conduct and atti- 
tude towards the Church. 

At this juncture William fell ill. Tortured by 
the superstitions and fears that so frequently assail 
the evil-doer at such times, he became convinced that 
his recovery depended on his appointing an arch- 
bishop. Anselm happened to be in the neighbour- 
hood, and was sent for. He did his work faithfully 
as a priest of God by admonition and reproof. The 
king expressed repentance, and promised amend- 
ment of life and conduct. When asked by those 
who stood by his sick-bed, "Who is to be the 
primate ? " he replied, " The Abbot of Bee." 

The decision was received with cries of delight, 
and the bishops proceeded with all speed to Anselm, 
that he might receive the crosier from the king's 
hand. To their amazement he refused to accompany 
them, declining the archbishopric on the ground 
of age, of incapacity for administration, and of his 
inability to leave the monastery. They would listen 
to no excuses, but dragged him hurriedly into the 
royal presence. The scene which then took place is 
so incredible that, were it not for the circumstantial 
details, and the assurance of the accuracy of the 
narrative by one who was an eye-witness, we should 
hesitate to give credence to the story. 

William, now fully persuaded that his life de- 
pended on Anselm's appointment to the see, 


entreated him, with tears in his eyes, to deliver him 
from the deadly peril in which he stood. The new 
archbishop still resisted, whereupon the king com- 
manded all who were present to fling themselves at 
the abbot's feet, and implore him to have pity on 
their dying master. As he showed some signs of re- 
lenting, there was a cry of " The crosier, the crosier ! " 
This was placed in the king's hand while Anselm 
was dragged towards the bed. He immediately 
placed his hands in his pockets, but the bishops 
forced them out ; some held down his left hand, 
while others seized his right hand and brought it 
in contact with that of the king. But the fist was 
firmly closed and would not open. At length the 
forefinger gave way, and in a moment the crosier 
was placed between the finger and thumb, and the 
hand clasped. No sooner was this accomplished, 
than a shout went up, " Long live the new arch-, 
bishop ! " He was carried on the shoulders of the 
bishops to the nearest church ; the Te Deum was 
commenced ; and as they marched in procession, the 
building being filled with an enthusiastic congre- 
gation, the archbishop-elect, murmuring the words, 
" It is nought, it is nought that ye do," fainted 
away. In a letter to the monks of Bee, he says, 
" It would have been difficult to make out whether 
madmen were dragging along one in his senses, or 
sane men a madman, save that they were chanting, 
and I, pale with amazement and pain, looked more 
like one dead than alive." 

As a condition of his acceptance of the primacy 
Anselm stipulated : first, that the property of the see 
should be restored in full, and that if any dispute 


should arise asvto what did, or did not, belong to 
the Church, there should be a legal investigation ; 
secondly, that the king should receive the arch- 
bishop as his adviser in all things pertaining to 
the Church, and regard him as his spiritual father ; 
and thirdly, that he (Anselm) should be at liberty 
to regard Urban as the pope (Clement being a rival 
claimant to the papal chair), although as yet the 
English nation had been neutral, and had acknow- 
ledged neither. The reply of William (who had in 
the mean time recovered from his illness) to these 
demands was as follows : " The king is willing to 
restore the estates which are acknowledged to 
belong to the Churh ; as to the other requirements, 
he cannot bind himself to any specific promise." 

Thus only one concession was made at the time 
when Anselm accepted the primacy, and we shall 
see how soon this single pledge was broken. 

The new archbishop met the king at Winchester, 
and did homage, the investiture having already 
taken place. He was consecrated at Canterbury by 
the Archbishop of York, assisted by all the bishops 
save two (who were absent on acount of illness), on 
December 4, 1093 A.D. 

At Christmas he repaired to Gloucester, where 
the Court was assembled, in order, at the urgent 
advice of his friends, to make an offering of money 
to the king, who was in great want. Lest he should 
be accused of purchasing his position by a simoniacal 
transaction, he fixed his gift at five hundred marks. 
At first the king was pleased ; but on reflection 
he considered that the amount should have been 
double, and the money was returned as insufficient. 


An audience was demanded by the primate, at which 
high words passed between prelate and monarch. 
This was the commencement of the series of mis- 
understandings and controversies between them 
which entailed such misery upon the country ; and 
we cannot but feel that much of the trouble might 
have been averted if Anselm had acted with more 
tact and worldly wisdom, and if his performance of 
his duty, from which, however unpleasant, he never 
shrank, had been, so far as his intercourse with 
William was concerned, less ill-timed, unfortunate, 
and injudicious. 

The friction was increased, and the relationship 
further strained, by the archbishop's request for 
the holding of a synod, to consider the spiritual 
destitution of the country, and the low state of 
morals. The king listened impatiently for some 
time, and then exclaimed, " Enough ; talk to me 
no more about it." Anselm then proceeded to 
censure his royal master for keeping so many of the 
abbeys without abbots, thus causing demoralization 
among the monks, and for his backwardness in re- 
dressing these and other evils. The abbeys referred 
to were exempt from episcopal jurisdiction ; the 
king, therefore, turned fiercely upon the archbishop, 
exclaiming, " What is that to you ? Are not the 
abbeys mine ? You do what you will with your 
own, and surely I may do what I will with mine." 

A year later, the king returned from a military 
expedition in Normandy, which had been a failure. 
Anselm applied to him for permission to visit 
Rome for the purpose of receiving the pallium from 
the pope. " From which pope ? " asked William. 


" From Urban," was the reply. It will be remem- 
bered that when Anselm had previously raised this 
question William had evaded it. The evident anti- 
cipation of the royal decision by one of his subjects 
roused the indignation of the king. " Urban," he 
said, " I have not acknowledged. By my customs, 
by the customs of my father, no man may acknow- 
ledge a pope in England without my leave. To 
challenge my power in this is as much as to deprive 
me of my crown." 

The archbishop, nothing daunted, demanded that 
the question at issue should be investigated by a 
council of the chief men in Church and State. The 
meeting was accordingly convened, and took place 
on March n, 1095 A.D. The king was not present. 
Anselm opened the proceeding by complaining that 
he was reduced to the dilemma of either forfeiting 
his fealty to the king, or of renouncing his obe- 
dience to the pope. The bishops replied, declining 
to enter into the religious question, and urging the 
primate to make unconditional submission to the 
sovereign, as an atonement for what they considered 
to have been the usurpation of the royal prerogative. 
After a protracted discussion, the meeting dispersed 
without any result, and the matter was allowed to 

While Anselm returned to his devotions and his 
studies, the king was employing himself in efforts 
for the humiliation of the archbishop. Having 
found, through trusted ambassadors who had been 
despatched to Rome, that Urban was the most 
pliable of the rival popes, he arranged that the 
pallium should be sent to himself, instead of to 


the primate, and then issued a proclamation, with- 
out consultation or communication with Anselm, 
acknowledging Urban as pope. Through the con- 
summate diplomacy of Walter, Bishop of Albano, 
the papal legate, a reconciliation was effected 
between the archbishop and the king ; and on the 
appointed day the pallium was placed by the legate 
on the altar of Canterbury Cathedral, whence it 
was removed by Anselm, who placed it on his own 
shoulders with great ceremony. 

The next subject of disagreement between the 
primate and the king was the desire of the former to 
visit the pope for the purpose of obtaining counsel 
and advice, and the determination of the latter 
to prevent him from taking this step. The king 
commanded him under no circumstances to appeal 
to the see of St. Peter or his vicar. He was well 
aware that Anselm's object was to concert measures 
with the pope by which he might evade his promise 
to adhere to the laws and customs of England. The 
archbishop refused compliance with the command, 
and in spite of the warnings and entreaties of the 
bishops, adhered to his resolution to make the 
journey, although he had been informed that the 
consequence of such an act would be the forfeiture 
of his position and possessions. He paid a visit 
to William. " Not knowing when I may see you 
again," said the archbishop, "I now, as a spiritual 
father to a son, offer you my benediction, if you 
do not reject it." "Your benediction," replied the 
king, " I do not reject ; " whereupon he bowed his 
head, and Anselm with his right hand made over 
him the sign of the cross. They never met again. 


The archbishop left England in October, 1097 A.D., 
and gradually made his way to Rome. The diffi- 
culties of the journey were increased by the fact 
that when he sojourned at places where Urban was 
recognized as pope, he was received as a saint and 
confessor ; while in those provinces which acknow- 
ledged Clement, the saint became a schismatic, and 
was obliged to travel in disguise. The story of the 
procrastination and dilatory proceedings of Urban 
in considering the mutual attitude of the King of 
England and the Archbishop of Canterbury towards 
each other is too complicated to be here told in detail. 
The pope was a thorough politician ; and while it 
served his purpose to affect a feeling of indignation, 
it would have been a suicidal act of impolicy at 
the time to break with William. At length Anselm 
realized that Urban had no intention of assisting 
him, and consequently left Rome. 

Shortly after, in August, noo A.D., Anselm re- 
ceived the intelligence of the death of the king. He 
was visibly affected, as any good man would be on 
hearing of the sudden death of a bad man, cut off in 
the midst of his sins. At Lyons he found a monk 
from Canterbury, who, in the name of the mother 
Church of England, required his immediate return. 
He received a cordial invitation from King Henry, 
who undertook to abolish all the abuses and enor- 
mities of the preceding reign, and, restoring freedom 
to the Church, to fill up without delay all vacancies 
in spiritual offices, and not to appropriate their 
revenues for his own advantage. On Anselm's 
arrival in England he was welcomed by the king 
with every demonstration of reverence and respect. 


Soon, however, a new controversy arose. Henry, 
anxious to show the sincerity of his promise to 
restore the forfeited property of the Church of Can- 
terbury by reinstating Anselm, made arrangements 
for his investiture. To the surprise of all, the 
archbishop refused to receive investiture at the 
hands of the king, a layman. 

It will be necessary to examine briefly the 
history of this question. Under Canute England 
had accepted the old continental rule that the 
sovereign should invest ecclesiastics with the tem- 
poralities of their benefices by the transfer of certain 
symbols, which, in the case of a bishop, consisted 
of a staff and ring. On the establishment of the 
feudal system, the Church everywhere began to 
look upon this ancient ceremony with suspicion. 
The feeling grew that its continuance would render 
the Church too dependent upon the civil ruler. 
Moreover, it was argued that, inasmuch as the staff 
and ring symbolized to some extent the spiritual 
powers of the episcopate, and these were not derived 
from earthly sovereignties, the investiture by the 
king was misleading. During the pontificate of 
Gregory VI L, by a synod held at Rome in 1075 
A.l.)., ecclesiastics were expressly forbidden to receive 
any investiture from the hands of an emperor, a 
king, or any lay person. 

Anselm appears to have been ignorant of this 
ruling until his visit to Rome, and this accounts 
for his having accepted investiture at the hands of 
William, though he now declined to receive it from 
Henry, and refused to consecrate the bishops whom 
the king had invested. 


While Lanfranc had been an imperialist, asserting 
the independence of the Church of England, Anselm 
was a papist, desiring its amalgamation with the 
Church of Rome. 

Although advanced in years, he again undertook 
the journey to Rome, in order to ascertain clearly 
the ruling of Pope Paschal, who had succeeded 
Urban in the papal see. But the pope, although 
without the slightest intention of sanctioning lay 
investiture, had no wish to quarrel with the English 
king. By means of judiciously worded letters to 
both parties, apparently taking the side of each 
in the controversy, he avoided coming to any 

The dispute was ultimately settled at a council held 
at the king's palace in London, in 1107 A.D., when it 
was resolved : (i) That for the future no one should 
be invested by the king or any lay hand in any 
bishopric or abbey by the delivering of a pastoral 
staff or a ring ; (2) That no one elected to any 
prelacy should be denied consecration on account 
of the homage he does to the king. 

In 1 108 A.D. Anselm presided at a synod held in 
London, which passed a series of stringent regula- 
tions for enforcing the celibacy of the clergy. 

After a protracted illness, he died on April 21, 
1109 A.D., in the seventy-sixth year of his age, and 
was buried in Canterbury Cathedral. 

He was the author of a considerable number of 
devotional and doctrinal works. Some among them, 
notably his "Meditations," have been translated 
more than once, and are still in the hands of pious 
persons of almost every school of theology. 


His character was that of an earnest and deeply 
religious man. While ostensibly contending for 
the liberties of the Church, he was, in reality, 
endeavouring to supersede a royal by a spiritual 
despotism ; to substitute the authority of the Pope 
of Rome for that of the King of England. In the 
contemplative life, the virtues and the graces of 
Anselm were such as to procure for him the admira- 
tion and respect of the Church in every age ; but 
as a practical man he failed. And yet the single- 
mindedness, gentleness, large-heartedness, and piety 
which he displayed in so conspicuous a degree, com- 
bine to render him one of the brightest ornaments 
of the Christian Church. 



THOMAS A BECKET (1162-1171 A.D.). 

THE period of fifty-three years from the death of 
Anselm to the accession of Becket is chiefly notable 
on account of the persistent, and to a great extent 
successful, efforts on the part of the papacy to 
establish a spiritual supremacy over the Church of 
England. For this consummation William de Cor- 
beuil, nicknamed by the monks "Old Turmoil," 
who was primate from 1123 A.D. to 1136 A.D., was 
mainly responsible. He was the first Archbishop 
of Canterbury who acknowledged himself to be 
simply a deputy of the pope in this country. For 
nearly four hundred years after his death, until 
1531 A.D., the Church of England, although the 
authority of the Bishop of Rome was never acknow- 
ledged by her in her councils, continued to struggle 
and writhe under the powerful dominion which the 
popes, with the frequent assistance of the monarch, 
were enabled to exercise and assert. 

The year 1115 A.D. is of interest because of the 
union which took place between the English and 
Welsh Churches. The Church of Wales, the sur- 
viving portion of the ancient British Church, was 


henceforth amalgamated with the English Church, 
forming one religious body instead of two bodies in 
communion with one another. This was accom- 
plished through the Welsh bishops consenting to 
take the oath of canonical obedience to the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and recognizing him as their 

Theobald succeeded William de Corbeuil, hold- 
ing office for two and twenty years, until his death 
in 1161 A.D. It was to his advice and influence 
that the young king, Henry II., who came to the 
throne of this country after the disgraceful misrule 
by Stephen, gathered round him a number of earnest 
men who helped him to govern his people with 
more justice and wisdom than his predecessor had 
shown. Chief among these was Thomas Becket, 
who had been for some time confidential secretary 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Thomas, the son of Gilbert Becket, a famous 
merchant and citizen of London, was born at his 
father's house in Cheapside, on December 21, 1118 
A.D., and was baptized in St. Mary Cole Church. 

On leaving school, where, without becoming a 
scholar in the technical sense of the word, he had 
acquired the art, so important in those days, of 
speaking Latin fluently, the youthful Thomas was 
admitted into the household of Richer de 1'Aigle, 
a great noble, at Pevensey Castle, in order that he 
might be initiated into the arts of chivalry, and learn 
the other accomplishments of the age. 

When he was twenty-one years old his mother 
died, and shortly afterwards he determined to com- 
plete his studies in the schools of Paris. 



In 1 142 A.D. he was introduced to Theobald, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and obtained an appointment 
in his household. In those days it was necessary 
for a successful career that a man should be either 
a knight or a cleric. Becket's aversion to theo- 
logical studies, and his natural inclination towards 
secular pursuits, prevented him for a time from 
seeking ordination. At length he was admitted to 
the minor orders of the Church, not that he might 
perform any clerical duties, but simply that a 
sufficient income might be secured to him. He 
became Rector of St. Mary-le-Strand, and of Otford 
in Kent. When Roger became Archbishop of York 
in 1154 A.D., Thomas, though only a deacon, was 
appointed to succeed him as Archdeacon of Cantor- 
bury, the most lucrative office, next to a bishopric, 
in the Church. 

On the accession of Henry II., Thomas the arch- 
deacon was removed, at the instance of Theobald 
himself, from the court of the archbishop to that 
of the king, and became " Thomas the Chancellor," 
as he describes himself in the charters which still 

At the present time, when the pressure of work 
is so severe and so varied in all the three orders 
of the ministry, it sounds strange to read of eccle- 
siastics holding high office in the State. But for 
many centuries this was the rule rather than the 
exception ; and the principle holds good even now, 
when the two Archbishops and the Bishop of London, 
besides being members of the House of Lords, are 
by virtue of their office "sworn of" Her Majesty's 
Privy Council. 

BECKET. 5 1 

The career of Thomas the Chancellor was a 
career of uninterrupted brilliancy, and he has been 
justly included in the catalogue of the most emi- 
nent of English statesmen. While maintaining his 
position with considerable pomp and lavish ex- 
penditure, he was always careful to husband his 
resources, so that he might be able, in time of war, 
to render the king effectual service, or, at his own 
cost, to conduct an expensive diplomatic mission. 
For example, when the war of Toulouse commenced, 
he provided and rode at the head of seven hundred 
fully equipped knights ; clad, not in cope or surplice, 
but in helm and cuirass. Again, when he under- 
took the celebrated embassy to France in 1 159 A.D., 
to seek in marriage the French king's daughter, 
aged three months, for King Henry's son, who was 
three years her senior, he both evinced his patriotism 
and indulged his own taste for magnificence. As 
he passed through the cities of France, the entire 
population turned out to behold the procession. 
His object in all this was not to gratify his personal 
vanity, but to impress the neighbours of England 
with a sense of the importance of her ruler; a 
thought that found expression in the words, " If 
such be the King of England's chancellor, what 
manner of man must the King of England himself 

In April, 1161 A.D., Archbishop Theobald died. 
Henry and Becket were at the time in Normandy, 
and as the chancellor was taking leave of the king, 
in order to return to England on political business, 
Henry informed him that he was to be the new 
Archbishop of Canterbury. Believing that the king 


was speaking in jest, he pointed to his gay attire, 
as indicative of his secular tastes and habits, and 
replied, "A pretty saint you wish to place over 
that holy bishopric and that famous monastery." 

When he found that the king was resolute in 
his determination, Becket warned him that if the 
appointment were made it would be the termination 
of their friendship. He knew Henry, and he knew 
himself. He understood that the king would expect 
from an archbishop whom he nominated a com- 
pliance with his wishes which the archbishop would 
feel it his duty to resist. 

It is only fair to Becket to state that he never 
sought the primacy. He must have known that if 
he outlived Theobald, the archbishopric would be 
within his reach. But, as chancellor, he was in 
the very sphere adapted to his talents and inclina- 
tions, while he had never shown any predilection 
for the religious life of an ecclesiastic. If his am- 
bition had led him to covet the position, he would, 
while chancellor, have taken some pains to con- 
ciliate the various parties whose consents were 
required before a valid election could take place. 
On the contrary, he was regarded by many of the 
bishops as "a despiser of the clergy," and was 
declared to be a " persecutor and destroyer of Holy 

More than a year elapsed before the king could 
carry his point, during which time Becket main- 
tained a dignified attitude, neither canvassing for 
the appointment, nor opposing Henry's wishes. He 
was ordained to the priesthood by his friend Walter, 
Bishop of Rochester, on the eve of Whitsunday, 


1 162 A.D. ; and was consecrated, eight days after, by 
Henry de Blois, Bishop of Winchester. 

The first act of the new archbishop was to appoint 
the day of his consecration, the octave of Whitsun- 
day, to form a festival in the Church of England, in 
honour of the Holy and Undivided Trinity. From 
that day to this, the festival of Trinity Sunday has 
been thus observed in this country. The Roman 
Church followed the example of the Anglican Church 
by adopting the festival in the fourteenth century. 

Becket immediately resigned the chancellorship, 
and in many ways showed himself determined to 
put an end to his friendship with Henry. For 
upwards of twelve months the king, contrary to 
his natural disposition, evinced an anxiety to retain 
the affection of his former comrade. But the atti- 
tude of the latter made it inevitable that the breach 
between them must occur sooner or later. 

A year after his consecration, the archbishop 
attended the Council of Tours, where the magnifi- 
cence and pomp with which he surrounded himself 
outshone that of the pope. His proposal, which, 
however, was not acted upon, that Anselm should 
be canonized (this was not done till three centuries 
later), and the tone which prevailed at the council, 
due in great measure to his influence, against the 
exercise of secular authority, convinced the king 
that he would be compelled to make a firm stand on 
behalf of the supremacy of the Crown. The action 
of the archbishop, on his return, in setting the laws 
of William the Conqueror at defiance by excommu- 
nicating William of Eynesford, who was tenant- 
in-chief of the Crown, for refusing to present a 


nominee of the archbishop's to a living of which 
he was patron, further incensed Henry. 

From the day when he was appointed to the 
primacy, Becket determined, at all costs, to maintain 
the power of the Church against the royal encroach- 
ment. It is not surprising that, before long, two 
men, so masterful, and each contending for what 
he considered a vital principle, should come into 
active collision. This occurred at a council held 
by the king at Woodstock, when he proposed that 
the Danegeld, a payment made to the local sheriffs, 
should become a compulsory tax levied by the 
Crown. The king was so enraged that his former 
chancellor should oppose his wishes, that he shouted 
out, "By God's eyes, the money shall be paid as 
revenue." Whereupon Becket retorted, "And by 
God's eyes, while I live, from land of mine no such 
payment shall be made." 

The next point of dispute which arose was the 
right, which the king desired to establish, of trying 
the clergy in civil courts for criminal charges. The 
separation between the civil and ecclesiastical courts, 
which had been effected by William the Conqueror, 
resulted in the practical immunity of the worst class 
of clerical offenders from adequate punishment. 
A great council was convened at Westminster, 
in October, 1163 A.D., to determine the matter. 
The king, in a temperate speech, requested that 
any of the clergy, convicted in the spiritual courts 
of robbery, murder, or other crimes, should be de- 
livered over to the officers of the royal courts to be 
dealt with according to the laws of the land. The 
bishops at first assented ; but, won over by the 


impassioned eloquence of Becket, who raised his 
favourite cry, " The liberty of the Church ! " they 
declared that it was inconsistent with their duty to 
the Church to give an unqualified consent to the 
demand. Henry then inquired if the bishops would 
conform, unreservedly, to the usages of his kingdom, 
and the royal constitutions of his ancestors. Becket 
readily replied, " We will, in all things, saving our 
order." The king demanded the withdrawal of the 
qualifying phrase, and angrily retired. A subse- 
quent interview between him and the archbishop 
only served to embitter their relations. 

Becket immediately wrote to the pope for advice. 
As usual, unwilling to lose the friendship of the 
English king, the Bishop of Rome urged that con- 
cessions should be made for the sake of peace. The 
archbishop, finding himself deserted in a quarter 
where he looked for support, and learning that the 
majority of the bishops regarded him as being in 
error, capitulated. He went to the king, and pro- 
mised to omit the phrase which had given such 
dire offence. 

Henry required that the withdrawal should be 
public, and summoned a council to meet at the 
Castle of Clarendon, near Salisbury, in January, 
1 164 A.D. Two archbishops and eleven bishops were 
present. The council proceeded to draw up sixteen 
articles, called the " Constitutions of Clarendon," 
the object of which was to restrain the authority of 
the Church, and make the clergy amenable to the 
civil courts. They contained no absolutely novel 
enactments, but merely reaffirmed the ancient prin- 
ciple of the Realm and Church of England, in 


opposition to the growing Romanizing tendencies. 
They were, however, somewhat stringent in their 

Becket refused to accept the Constitutions, and 
was supported in his refusal by the bishops. The 
king was furious, and for a time there was danger 
of an outburst of violence on the part of the barons, 
who favoured the royal demand. 

Suddenly, however, for no reason that has ever 
been assigned, the archbishop's resolution gave way. 
He acted, for the only time in his life, with weak- 
ness and inconsistency. Returning to the bishops, 
he said, " It is God's will that I should perjure 
myself; for the present I submit and incur perjury, 
to repent of it hereafter as I best may." 

The king, as may be imagined, was delighted 
when the archbishop and his suffragans came and 
declared their assent to the Constitutions ; but was 
amazed and irritated when Becket, on being re- 
quested to affix his official seal to the document, 
exclaimed, " By God Almighty ! never, while there is 
breath in my body, shall seal of mine touch them." 

The next move, on the part of the king, was to 
call a council at Northampton, in 1 164 A.D., at which 
Becket was accused of perjury, contempt of the 
Crown, and misappropriation of funds during his 
chancellorship (although, when he resigned the office, 
he received an express declaration of his discharge 
from all secular obligations) ; and he was condemned 
to forfeit all his estates and possessions to the king. 
On the recommendation of Henry de Blois, he offered 
two thousand marks as indemnity, which the king, 
whose object was to humiliate and crush the primate, 


refused to accept. At a later session of the council, 
Becket was impeached for high treason, and the 
Earl of Leicester, as chief justice, called upon him 
to hear his sentence. "Nay, son earl," was the 
reply, " first hear me. ... I decline to receive judg- 
ment from the king or you, or any other temporal 
peer, and will be judged under God by the pope 

Carrying his cross before him, he left the council 
chamber with dignity, followed by insults and 
cries of " Traitor ! " He fled for sanctuary to St. 
Andrew's Church, whence, under cover of night, he 
proceeded to Lincoln, journeying through Eastry, 
and at length arrived at Sandwich. He landed on 
the French coast at Gravelines, and assumed the 
disguise of a Cistercian monk, until he reached St. 
Omer, where he was hospitably entertained. On 
arriving at Soissons, he resumed his state as Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and proceeded to visit the 
pope at Sens, escorted by three hundred knights. 

Meanwhile, Henry had despatched envoys to the 
pope, desiring that " the traitor " should be sent back 
to England, and that a special legate should be ap- 
pointed to investigate the charges against him. The 
course taken by the Bishop of Rome, of appear- 
ing to side with both disputants, and in reality 
favouring neither, gave offence to each. Becket 
thereupon played his master-stroke. Drawing the 
archiepiscopal ring from his finger, he handed it 
to the pope, and resigned the see of Canterbury 
into his hands, praying him to appoint a worthy 
successor. Next day the ring was returned to the 
archbishop, who was thus able afterwards to say 


that he held the primacy from the pope and not 
from the king. 

On St. Andrew's Day, 1164 A.D., Becket arrived 
at Pontigny, where he remained for nearly two 
years, during which time he devoted himself to 
self-discipline, and meditation on sacred subjects. 

Henry, having confiscated the archbishop's pro- 
perty, proceeded to display his vindictiveness by 
issuing a decree of banishment and exile against all 
the relations of Becket, male and female, his clerks, 
dependants, friends and servants. Four hundred 
individuals, impoverished and starving, were cast 
on a foreign coast in the depth of winter, and with 
infinite difficulty made their way to Pontigny, where, 
through the kindness of the French king and the 
generosity of the French people, the archbishop, 
himself an exile and dependent on the charity of 
others, was enabled to procure for them the neces- 
saries of life. 

The contest between Henry and Becket waged 
with continued bitterness, in spite of all efforts on 
the part of Pope Alexander to mediate, for several 
years. At length, on the Feast of Epiphany, 1169 
A.D., a conference on political affairs between the 
kings of England and France, held on the plains 
of Montmirail, near Chartres, was taken advantage 
of for effecting a reconciliation. Henry was in a 
generous mood, and desired that all past subjects of 
dispute should be swept aside. Becket undertook 
to submit himself to the king, " saving God's honour." 
These words had before incensed Henry, as implying 
a disregard of God's honour on his own part. At 
the earnest solicitation of his friends, the archbishop 


made an unconditional surrender ; and just as a 
shout of joy went up at this happy termination 
of the long-protracted struggle, Becket added the 
obnoxious sentence, and thus destroyed all hope of 
peace. As the archbishop returned to Sens, he was 
encouraged by the acclamations of the populace, 
who gave him an ovation, praising him as the man 
that " defied two kings for the honour of his God." 

A second meeting, later in the year, was held at 
Montmartre, near Paris. By dint of great exertions 
on the part of Vivian, the papal envoy, to smooth 
over difficulties, promises were obtained from both 
disputants that each would abstain from usurping 
the other's prerogatives, and a reconciliation was 
effected. Becket's ill-advised demand for entire 
restitution of all the property of which he and his 
followers had been deprived, valued by him at thirty 
thousand marks, was received calmly by the king, 
who undertook to act fairly in the matter. Before 
separating with renewed cordiality, as all those 
present earnestly hoped, the archbishop approached 
Henry to offer the kiss of peace. Impelled, 
apparently, by a desire to renew the quarrel, he 
used the words which he knew would enrage the 
king, " I kiss you to the honour of God," and a 
second time the attempt to bring them together 
proved a failure. 

A third meeting took place at Freteval, between 
Chartres and Tours, where all enmity was for the 
time buried. Henry conceded everything, even going 
so far as to say, " Why is it that you will not do as 
I wish ? I would put everything into your hands." 

After considerable delay, occasioned by making 


preparations for returning to England with the 
dignity and state befitting his office, Becket landed 
at Sandwich. He had carried all his points. A 
proud king had succumbed before him ; the " Con- 
stitutions of Clarendon " were virtually suspended ; 
his advent was awaited with eagerness. Yet it was 
with sad misgivings that he made the journey. He 
doubted the good faith of Henry; he knew that he 
had many enemies, including some godless and un- 
scrupulous ruffians ; and it was with something of 
a prophetic foresight that he said, as he bade fare- 
well to the Bishop of Paris, " I go to England to 

From Canterbury the archbishop, who rejoiced 
in popular demonstration, made a series of trium- 
phal processions to London, but was warned by 
the young prince to return. 

Henry was at the time staying at Bayeux, where 
he was joined by the prelates from England whom 
Becket had excommunicated. In one of his mad 
fits of anger he exclaimed, " Of the caitiffs who eat 
my bread, are there none to free me of this turbu- 
lent priest ? " 

Four of the knights who stood by, desperate 
characters, immediately returned to England. Their 
names were Reginald Fitzurse, William de Tracy, 
Hugh de Morville, and Richard Brito. 

They found their way into Becket's palace at 
Canterbury, and a stormy interview took place. 
He defied them to do their worst, and after an 
exhibition of almost insane fury, they rushed out of 
the chamber, but soon returned with their weapons 
and clad in armour. His friends dragged the 

BECKET. 6 1 

archbishop by force into the cathedral, where 
vespers had just commenced. Becket forbade the 
monks to bar the cloister doors, and his enemies 
were upon him in a moment. Their object was 
not to murder him, but to take him prisoner. He 
resisted with might and main, and shook off his 
assailants with almost incredible strength. The 
first blow he received was from Fitzurse. This was 
immediately followed by a terrific sword-stroke on 
the head from De Tracy. Bowing himself, he 
ejaculated, " I commend my soul to God, to St. 
Denys, and the saints of the Church." As he grew 
weaker from loss of blood, he cried, " Lord, into 
Thy hands I commend my spirit." A final blow 
from Richard Brito consummated the murder, the 
force with which it was struck being so great that 
the sword was broken by contact with the marble 

The murderers, after ransacking the palace, fled. 
The monks, on their return, found the dead body 
of the archbishop, which was laid in state on the 
high altar, and buried the following day in the crypt 
of the cathedral. 

Becket was a brave man, with considerable nobility 
of character, which was marred by a perversity 
and quickness of temper that led him to commit 
grave errors of judgment. The influence of the 
man and of the cause for which he strove was enor- 
mously enhanced by the brutality of his murder, 
and the fact that it was committed within the 
sacred precincts of the cathedral. 



HENRY CHICHELEY (1414-1443 A.D.). 

THE murder of Thomas a Becket sent a thrill of 
horror through the civilized world. King Henry 
felt that his rash words had given a certain authori- 
zation for the commission of the crime, and bitterly 
repented his hasty utterance. When he returned 
to England in 1174 A.D., "he rode from Southamp- 
ton to Canterbury without resting, dismounted at 
the .gate of the city, walked barefoot through the 
streets to the cathedral, and prostrated himself on 
the ground before the tomb. In the chapter-house 
he caused each of the monks to strike him with 
the ' discipline,' and afterwards he spent the whole 
night in the church beside the tomb." 

The chief consequences, however, of Becket's 
death were the complete surrender on the part of 
the king of everything .for which he had been con- 
tending, and an accession of strength to the papal 
claims over the Anglican Church. 

The struggle between national ecclesiastical in- 
dependence and presumptuous papal aggrandize- 
ment was unintermittent. The balance of power 
rested largely in the hands of our kings, who at 
one moment supported the pope in the hopes of 


bending the bishops and clergy to their will, and at 
another resented the interference of the Bishop of 
Rome as trenching on their rights and prerogatives. 
A dispute of some importance arose during the 
primacy of Archbishop Baldwin as to the election 
of bishops. In Anglo-Saxon days the clergy of 
each diocese had the privilege of choosing their 
ecclesiastical superiors, except in the case of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, who was usually elected 
by the monks and canons of that cathedral, the 
king, owing to the importance of the appointment, 
exercising considerable influence over their choice. 
From the time of the Norman Conquest it became 
the custom for the king to nominate the occupants 
of episcopal sees. After the murder of Becket, the 
bishops of the province of Canterbury claimed a 
voice in the election of their primate, and a com- 
promise was accordingly effected by which the king 
issued a conge d'elire, or leave to elect, to the 
chapters, and their choice was submitted to him for 
ratification and approval. The present system, 
which is merely a slight modification of the above, 
allows the Crown to nominate, and the Dean and 
Chapter then proceed to the election of the person 
named to them. 

The Middle Ages witnessed considerable improve- 
ments in the relations of the Church to the State. 
We can trace in succession the far-reaching reforms 
within the Church effected by Hugh of Lincoln 
(1186-1200 A.D.), and Grossetete, Bishop of Lincoln 
(1235-1253 A.D.) ; the signing of Magna Charta by 
King John in 1215 A.D., the first clause of which 
runs as follows : " That the Church of England shall 


be free, and hold her rights entire, and her liberties 
inviolate ; " the meeting of Parliament, when for 
the first time the representatives of the citizens and 
burgesses (i.e. the Commons) were summoned to 
deliberate with the prelates and nobles for the 
welfare of the country, in 1265 A.D. ; the passing of 
laws resisting the encroachments of the papal see, 
notably the Statute of Mortmain in 1279 A.D. (for- 
bidding the Church to acquire lands by will); the 
Statute of Provisors in 1351 A.D. (requiring kings 
and all other lords to present to benefices of which 
they are patrons, and not allowing the Bishop of 
Rome to fill the vacancies) ; and the Statute of 
Praemunire in 1353 A.D. (withdrawing the protection 
of the State from, and confiscating the goods of, all 
who sued for redress in the papal courts). These 
last two statutes were made more stringent in 1390 
and 1393 A.D. respectively. Of the latter, Bishop 
Stubbs says that this statute is "the clue to the 
events that connect the Constitutions of Clarendon 
with the Reformation." 

One of the most powerful factors in preparing 
for the Reformation was the influence of John de 
Wycliffe (born 1322 A.D.), who by his writings roused 
the nation to repudiate the alien oppression of 
Rome, and by his translation of the Bible enabled 
men to apprehend the truths of Christianity through 
the individual study of the sacred records, instead 
of receiving distorted versions at second-hand from 
papal sources, which in great measure misled the 
priests and flock alike. 

The abuses in the monastic system led to the 
suppression of many of the monasteries and convents, 


and their wealth (in those cases where the treasures 
were not confiscated by the king) was alienated to 
the maintenance of poor scholars at the universities. 
By this means the universities became from that 
time the centres of scholarship and research. 

The revival of religious earnestness and zeal 
during this period was largely due to the preaching 
of the mendicant friars. They had their origin in 
the devotion of two men St. Dominic, a Spaniard 
(1170-1221 A.D.), and' St. Francis of Assisi in Italy 
(1182-1226 A.D.). The Dominicans, called in 
England "Black-friars" (from the colour of their 
dress), took their name from the former, while the 
Franciscans, or " Grey-friars," were those founded 
by the latter. Besides these, there sprang up the 
Carmelites, or "White-friars," and the "Austin- 
friars," or Augustinians. 

Their preaching infused new life into the Church 
of England, and brought about a system of evange- 
lizing which was almost unknown to the parochial 
clergy of their day. They gradually came to enlist 
the sympathy of the higher classes, in consequence of 
their untiring and self-denying labours in the lowest 
and poorest dens of misery and disease. Men of 
wealth were induced to leave them bequests. The 
consequence of this change in their habits and con- 
dition soon brought about the demoralization of the 
friars. They became, to a great extent, greedy 
fortune-hunters, while their zeal for reform spent 
itself in abuse of the parish priests, and in defend- 
ing every papal attempt to encroach on the rights 
and independence of the Church. 

Such, in a few words, is the story of the position 



of the Anglican Church during the thirteenth and 
fourteenth centuries. 

Archbishop Arundel (1396-1414 A.D.) was suc- 
ceeded in the primacy by Chicheley. Henry 
Chicheley, the son of a yeoman of Higham Ferrers, 
in Northamptonshire, was born in 1362 A.D., and 
was admitted a scholar of Winchester College in 
1373 A.D. After his public school education was 
completed, Chicheley proceeded to New College, 
Oxford, of which he became a Fellow. He took his 
degree, as a Bachelor of Laws, in 1389 A.D. 

On May 26, 1396 A.D., he was ordained to the 
diaconate, and in September of the same year to 
the priesthood, becoming at the same time Rector 
of St. Stephen's, Walbrook. In addition to his 
parochial duties, Chicheley practised as a lawyer, 
and was successful as an advocate in the Court of 
Arches. His abilities brought him to the notice of 
Richard of Mitford, Bishop of Salisbury, who re- 
quired a legal adviser, and appointed this rising 
barrister-priest to the office. At this time prefer- 
ments simply poured in upon Chicheley. He became 
Archdeacon of Dorset, and a Prebendary of Salis- 
bury in 1 397 A.D. ; three years later he was made 
Canon of St. David's ; in 1402 A.D. he was appointed 
Archdeacon of Salisbury ; a canonry of Lincoln 
was given him the following year ; in 1404 A.D. he 
received the chancellorship of Salisbury, with one 
or two livings. 

The fact of his accumulating these preferments 
is no proof that Chicheley was avaricious. But his 
ambition, and his desire to take part in the affairs 
of State, led him to welcome these ecclesiastical 


appointments, inasmuch as they provided him with 
the means of serving the king without making 
demands upon the royal treasury. 

His first State appointment was in July, 1406 A.u., 
when he was sent on a mission, jointly with Sir 
John Cheyne, to Pope Innocent VII., with a view to 
the establishment of friendly relations between the 
English and the papal courts. A few months later he 
was employed to negotiate a peace between France 
and England. The following year he was again sent 
to Rome, on an embassy to Pope Gregory XII., the 
occupant of the papal chair, who was at that time 
acknowledged in England, in opposition to his rival. 
It will be remembered that for thirty years, from 
the death of Gregory XI. in 1378 A.D., Europe was 
scandalized by the spectacle of two men, sometimes 
even of three, assuming to be successors of St. 
Peter and Vicars of Christ, who hurled against each 
other the most terrible anathemas, and invoked the 
horrors of war in the name of the Prince of Peace. 

While Chicheley was at the papal court, the news 
reached him of the death of Guy, Bishop of St. 
David's. He had received from the king the promise 
of this see, in the event of its becoming vacant during 
his absence. He thereupon applied to the pope for 
consecration, and returned to England on August 28, 
1407 A.D., as bishop. Before, however, he could be 
invested with the spiritualities of the see, he was 
required to take the oath of canonical obedience 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to do homage 
to the king. This precaution was taken lest his 
consecration by the Bishop of Rome should establish 
a precedent on the part of the papacy which might 


in any way prejudice the rights, privileges, or inde- 
pendence of the English Church and realm. 

Before he had time to visit his diocese, Chicheley 
was again requisitioned to attend, as one of the 
delegates representing the Church of England, the 
CEcumenical Synod convened to meet at Pisa. Here 
the corruptions of the Roman Church were unmerci- 
fully exposed ; the two rival popes were proved to be 
incorrigible heretics and obstinate schismatics, and 
were solemnly excommunicated ; and Peter Filargo, 
a Franciscan prior and a native of Candia, was 
unanimously elected to the papacy as Alexander V. 

On his return, Chicheley, desiring to retire from 
public and diplomatic life, and to devote himself to 
the spiritual work of his diocese, resigned most of 
his preferments, feeling that he no longer required, 
for State purposes, the wealth that they produced. 
He repaired to St. David's, and was enthroned on 
May 20, 1411 A.D. 

King Henry IV. died in 1413 A.D., and his son, 
Henry V., immediately summoned the Bishop of 
St. David's to court, in order that he might supply 
information as to the precise terms of the late truce 
with France. The clear-headedness and straight- 
forwardness of the prelate made a great impression 
on the young king's mind, and from this first inter- 
view we may date the lifelong friendship between 
the two. 

In the following year, on the death of Arundel, 
Henry Chicheley was appointed, amid universal ac- 
clamations, to the primacy ; the pall being delivered 
to him by the Bishops of Winchester and Norwich 
on July 24, 1414 A.D. 


The internal condition of England at this time 
was very unsettled. The insurrection under Sir 
John Oldcastle was only defeated by the prompt and 
energetic action of the king. The universal opinion 
of the royal counsellors, which was shared by the 
new archbishop, was that the best plan for diminish- 
ing the discontent at home would be to prosecute 
the war with France vigorously, instead of perpetually 
delaying the settlement of the dispute between the 
two nations by the renewal of truces which were 
never kept. 

As soon as the determination was arrived at that 
hostile measures were to be recommenced, Chicheley 
was both zealous and successful in helping to raise 
the necessary funds. He obtained from the clergy a 
subsidy of twopence, which was devoted to the ser- 
vice of the king. He also set the precedent, which 
was afterwards followed with unsparing severity, of 
confiscating monastic property for replenishing the 
State coffers ; although under him it was only the 
possessions of the alien priories that were sold, on 
the ground that they belonged to foreigners who were 
hostile to the King of England. The preparations, 
both for attack and defence, were carried out with the 
utmost efficiency, the king being especially active 
and far-seeing. His high opinion of the character 
and abilities of the archbishop led to his becoming 
Henry's chief adviser, and subsequently prime 

Before the fleet sailed from Southampton, the 
primate waited upon the king to receive his last 
commands, and to confer his benediction upon the 
armament. The news of the safe arrival of the king 


and his army at the mouth of the Seine, near Hon- 
fleur, was awaited with eagerness. On August 18, 
1415 A.D., the siege of Harfleur commenced, and on 
September 22 the town surrendered, and immense 
booty was secured by the king. But the greatest 
danger was to come. The troops had been decimated 
by disease, the fleet had dispersed, and the only 
means of return was by way of the English town of 
Calais. To reach it, however, Henry must march 
through the hostile country of Normandy, where an 
army of fourteen thousand men was waiting to 
attack him. The anxiety at home was intense. At 
length came the joyful news to the archbishop at 
Lambeth that the battle of Agincourt had been 
fought and won, notwithstanding that the French 
outnumbered the English in the proportion of six 
to one. Chicheley, on whose shoulders had rested 
a terrible burden of responsibility in the absence 
of the king, hastened to Canterbury to welcome the 
victorious monarch. Special thanksgiving services, 
at each of which Henry was present, were held in 
Canterbury Cathedral, at St. Paul's, and at West- 
minster Abbey. The enthusiasm of the people 
throughout the king's journey was unbounded, and, 
as he entered London, the crowds hailed him as 
the conqueror of the national enemy. 

We find Chicheley accompanying Henry on the 
next expedition to France, and he and the Earl of 
Warwick were deputed to conduct the treaty of 
surrender with the inhabitants of Rouen. This was 
signed on January 16, 1419 A.D., and three days 
later the king made his public entry into the town. 

In the following year a treaty of peace between 


the two countries was signed, and Henry shortly 
afterwards married the Princess Katherine, daughter 
of King Charles VI. of France. To conciliate the 
conquered nation, the Archbishop of Sens, and not 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, officiated. Chicheley 
took the opportunity of using his powers and ability 
in order to establish peace between the Anglican and 
Gallican Churches, as well as between the two states. 
With this object in view, he caused a proclamation 
to be issued, in which he directed the French to 
submit to all diocesan ordinances and regulations 
as they had existed before our conquest of the 
country, thereby renouncing all claim to jurisdiction 
on his part. He then returned to England, in order 
to prepare for the reception of the young queen, 
and for her coronation. 

We find the archbishop at this period acting 
with great firmness and determination in maintain- 
ing the liberties of the Church of England. Acting 
through his convocation, he availed himself of the 
schism at Rome to annul' all papal immunities and 
exemptions within his province. He cordially sanc- 
tioned, if he did not actually originate, the order 
in council prohibiting the preferment in England 
of any foreigner to an ecclesiastical benefice, and 
in 1421 A.D. he refused a grant to Pope Martin V. 
when a subsidy was demanded by the papal agent. 

It is not, therefore, surprising that the Bishop of 
Rome should 'have sought to humiliate Chicheley. 
He attempted to effect this by proposing to appoint 
Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, his legate 
a latere, Beaufort had, at the Council of Constance, 
materially benefited Pope Martin, and the conferring 


of a cardinal's hat was the expression of papal 
gratitude. The archbishop, foreseeing that the 
effect of the suggested nomination of a legate would 
practically be to supersede the primate, and to 
subjugate the Church of England to the Church of 
Rome, at once wrote to the king an earnest and 
convincing letter, protesting against this encroach- 
ment, and appealing for the withholding of the royal 
sanction. Henry responded cordially to this re- 
quest, and refused to permit Beaufort to retain his 
bishopric if he accepted the cardinalate. 

In the death of Henry V., on August 31, 1422 A.D., 
the archbishop lost a true and sterling friend, and one 
on whose wisdom, firmness, and courage he had come 
to lean for support in all the difficulties of his career. 

It was not long before the pope recommenced, 
with greater determination and energy than ever, 
his efforts to establish a complete sovereignty 
over the Church of England, and to compel the 
primate to act as the representative and delegate of 
the papacy. Martin was specially angry with the 
" Statute of Praemunire," to which he constantly 
applied the epithet " execrable." He wrote violent 
and abusive letters to Chicheley, who, being now 
an old man in enfeebled health, was intimidated 
by the fiery Roman bishop. In one of these letters, 
the pope, reviewing what he considers the unjust 
laws against the papacy, proves how independent 
the Church of England had been before his time, 
and shows that the royal supremacy which Henry 
VIII. afterwards claimed, was merely the revival 
of a royal prerogative that only ceased to exist in 
the fifteenth century. Chicheley took an unwise 


step when he applied to Parliament, in obedience 
to the papal demands, for the repeal of the Statutes 
of Provisors and Praemunire. The Commons, how- 
ever, were unwilling to give \vay to the usurping 
force, and petitioned the king to uphold the rights 
of the Anglican Church against the papal aggres- 
sion. The controversy, in one form or another, 
continued throughout the rest of the archbishop's 
life, Martin V. having grasped the fact that he 
could safely aim at effecting, under the weak 
government of Henry VI., what he had not dared 
to attempt when Henry V. was king. 

We must now, however, turn to the constructive 
and educational side of the primate's character, for 
which, rather than for his statesmanship, his memory 
is respected and venerated. 

In 1437 A.D. he purchased some land at Oxford, 
on which he founded and built, at his own expense, 
the College of All Souls. He did not rest until he 
had provided sufficient endowment to ensure its 
permanence. He was also the second founder of 
St. John's College, in the same university. 

Nor did he,- in the days of his prosperity and 
magnificence, forget the birthplace from which he 
had gone forth to attain to the highest position 
in the Church, and, after the royal family, in the 
State. He left many marks of his munificent spirit 
in the little town of Higham Ferrers, rebuilding 
the parish church, and founding a college of priests. 

At Canterbury he spent large sums of money in 
the adornment of the cathedral, and, in addition 
to this, he founded the cathedral library, which he 
furnished with a large collection of books. 


The name of Archbishop Chicheley will always 
be associated with the magnificent historic structure 
of Lambeth Palace, in consequence of his having 
built what is perhaps the most interesting portion 
of the whole range. In the " steward's accounts," 
preserved at the palace, we find a record of the 
expenditure on the "Water Tower," which has 
latterly but erroneously been termed the " Lollards' 
Tower." The date of its completion was 1435 A.D. 
The ground floor of this tower, on the same level 
as the chapel, is called the " Post-room." The post, 
from which the chamber derives its name, is not, 
as tradition has so persistently maintained, a relic 
of mediaeval barbarism, proving that heretics were 
habitually tortured there, but is merely a stay 
required to prop up a failing beam of unusual span, 
probably introduced in the beginning of last century. 
It was down the steps which led from the Post- 
room to the river that Anne Boleyn passed, on her 
way to the Tower, after the sentence of divorce had 
been passed upon her by Cranmer. Another feature 
of interest in the "Water Tower" is the prison. 
This, again, has been graphically depicted as a 
weapon in the hands of cruel archbishops where- 
with lo persecute the hapless Lollards. Nothing is 
further from the truth. The prison existed at the 
primate's palace originally for the incarceration 
of those condemned to punishment by the arch- 
bishops in their capacity as judges, and subsequently 
as a place of refuge, in which the occupants of the 
palace protected those who had been unjustly ac- 
cused for their religious beliefs. 

Two excellent portraits of Chicheley are preserved 


at Lambeth. One is on glass, preserved in the 
north-west window of Juxon's Hall, the present 
library. It is a work of considerable beauty, with 
the finish of a miniature painting, and is remarkable 
for the unusually youthful character of the face. The 
other hangs in the " Guard-room " of the palace, 
and is believed to be a faithful likeness. It repre- 
sents him in the act of pronouncing the benediction. 

On April 12, 1443 A.D., the good old primate 
breathed his last, at the age of eighty-one. His 
remains were deposited in a vault on the north 
side of the presbytery in Canterbury Cathedral. 
There, upon a monument erected in his lifetime, 
reposes his effigy, in the carved magnificence of his 
pontifical vestments. 

With Henry Chicheley the long line of indepen- 
dent archbishops, who had come down in regular 
succession from Augustine, terminated. They had 
governed the Church of England, not as delegates 
from any foreign power, but by their own authority, 
in spite of the aggressions of the papacy. From 
this period until the days of Queen Elizabeth the 
claims of the Bishops of Rome to exercise sovereignty 
over the Anglican Church, although never admitted 
by the synods, were frequently conceded under 
protest, especially when, to suit his own purposes, 
the king allied himself to the pope, and enforced 
the papal pretensions by means of royal authority. 

Archbishop Chicheley was a powerful statesman, 
and a deeply spiritual prelate. Though not a Luther, 
he desired to be, in the highest sense of the word, " a 
reformer of the corruptions and abuses which were 
in his day debasing and weakening the Church." 



WILLIAM WARHAM (1503-1532 A.D.). 

THE progress of the Church was terribly hindered 
by the long-continued Wars of the Roses, which ex- 
tended throughout the greater part of the fifteenth 
century. At the conclusion of the war, Henry VII. 
(the founder of the Tudor dynasty) encouraged, 
rather than opposed, the claims of the Bishops 
of Rome to absolute ecclesiastical supremacy in 
England. This brought matters towards the crisis 
which shortly afterwards resulted in the final over- 
throw of Roman influence in this country during the 
following reign. 

A definite scheme for raising the intellectual 
standard of the clergy, and bringing about a re- 
formation in education and scholarship, was formed 
in Oxford by three friends Colet, son of a Lord 
Mayor of London, whose lectures on Holy Scrip- 
ture, in which he freely condemned the superstitions 
of the day, attained a remarkable popularity and 
fame, and who subsequently became Dean of St. 
Paul's ; Erasmus, a poor scholar of Rotterdam, 
who came to England at the age of thirty, intro- 
duced the study of Greek into the universities, 


subsequently becoming professor of that language 
at Cambridge, and produced the first Greek Testa- 
ment ever printed ; and Sir Thomas More, who 
afterwards became Lord High Chancellor. We 
have in the action of these three men the founda- 
tion-stone of the Reformation. 

The enormous influence of Thomas Wolsey, Arch- 
bishop of York, Lord Chancellor, cardinal, and 
papal legate, which he exerted in the most powerful 
manner towards the suppression of abuses in the 
monastic system and in other ways, gave great 
impetus to the movement. 

Such was the condition of Church affairs in 
England at the commencement of the reign of 
Henry VIII., when William Warham was primate. 

But, first of all, it will be instructive to inquire 
what were the various internal causes of the great 
change that passed over the Church of England in 
the sixteenth century. They were partly social, 
partly political, but in the main religious. The 
Reformation, which was finally effected by the 
resumption of the royal supremacy in the Act of 
1534 A.D., and the decision of Convocation in the 
same year (subsequently ratified by Act of Parlia- 
ment), that "the Pope of Rome hath no greater 
jurisdiction conferred on him by God in Holy 
Scripture, in this kingdom of England, than any 
other foreign bishop." 

The royal supremacy had existed in theory, if 
not always in practice, from the earliest days of 
the monarchy in this country, and therefore the 
statute referred to above was not the promulgation 
of a new law, but the reafifirmation of an existing 


one. Similarly, the rejection of papal authority 
was merely the enforcement of the principle on 
which the Church had acted since the days when 
Hildebrand claimed both temporal and spiritual 
sovereignty over the whole world, viz. the resistance 
of any and every attempt to place the Anglican 
Church in a position of subjection to the Roman. 
On frequent occasions, when the king, to gain his 
own personal ends, threw into the scale the weight 
of his power and influence, the Church was com- 
pelled, under protest, to submit for a time to the 
authority of the papacy ; but when this was the 
case she never rested until she had repelled the 
usurpation. Under Henry VIII. she happened to 
be supported by the king in her resistance to Roman 
aggression, not because that monarch favoured the 
Reformation, but on account of his personal quarrel 
with the pope on the subject of his matrimonial 

The corruption and vice which had marked so 
large a number of the Bishops of Rome during 
the Middle Ages produced a feeling of disgust and 
contempt in the minds of all thoughtful men, and 
prepared them for the furtherance of any scheme 
which would overthrow, once and for ever, the 
authority over English ecclesiastical matters which 
was so repeatedly claimed by the occupants of the 
papal chair. 

The revival of learning, and the facilities (which 
were daily becoming greater) of studying the 
Scriptures in the vernacular, unmasked the various 
legends and falsifications of history, which were 
so sedulously circulated by those who favoured the 


attempt to bring about the Roman supremacy, and 
led men to grasp the fact that the branch of the 
Catholic Church which arrogated to itself the first 
place in the visible kingdom of Christ on earth had, 
by its modern innovations, fallen away from apostolic 

Thus it came to pass that the Reformation was a 
practical movement. There was no sudden revolu- 
tion, no uprooting of cherished beliefs, nor was there 
the enforcement of strange and unpalatable dogmas 
upon an unwilling priesthood. This is proved by the 
almost unanimous voice of the clergy in welcoming 
the change. 

In the present day, when the recent Catholic 
revival has led us to appreciate and value much of 
the primitive doctrine and ritual of the Church, 
which had, until fifty years ago, been lost sight of 
and well-nigh lost since the sixteenth century, it is 
the fashion with many people to lay the blame upon 
those who were responsible for the Reformation. 
But we must remember that the result of the move- 
ment was the outcome of a compromise. The aim 
of Warham, Cranmer, and Parker, and of those who 
acted with them, was to preserve the continuity of 
the Anglican Church. Arrayed against them was the 
enormous power of the papacy, resisting any attempt 
at reform, and bent on establishing a permanent 
supremacy over the Church in this land. Equally 
formidable and dangerous was the influence of 
the foreign Protestants, Lutherans, Calvinists, and 
Zwinglians, who sought the co-operation of England 
in sweeping aside all trace of Catholicity, and the 
formation of a sect. Thus our Reformers had to 


decide how far they could go in abolishing, or at 
all events in discontinuing non-essentials in teach- 
ing and practice, in order that by sacrificing what was 
not of vital importance they might retain the cardinal 
truths of the faith, and the apostolical succession, 
the primitive celebration of the Holy Sacraments, 
and the like. Regarding the matter with the im- 
partial mind of the student of history, we cannot 
but feel that, bitterly as the Church has suffered 
during the intervening period, her apostolic character 
might have been altogether lost had it not been 
for the sagacity of those who have been so often 
abused, guided and overruled, as we may feel sure 
they were, by the Divine Spirit, in accordance with 
the parting promise of the risen Lord. 

We now come to consider the history of the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury who was privileged to take 
part in the first efforts towards emancipating the 
Anglican Church from the thraldom of Rome. 
William Warham was born at Walsanger, in the 
county of Southampton, about the year 1450 A.D., 
and was educated at Winchester. After a dis- 
tinguished career at Oxford, he came to London in 
1488 A.D., and practised with considerable ability 
as a lawyer in the Court of Arches. He appears 
to have been ordained in 1493 A.D., and though 
the dates of his early preferments are uncertain, he 
was successively Incumbent of Honvood Magna, in 
the county of Lincoln, and Rector of Barley, in 
Hertfordshire. His appointment as Precentor of 
Wells (for the sake of its emoluments) preceded by 
only a few months his accession to the Mastership 
of the Rolls, which took place in February, 1494 A.D. 

WARHAM. 8 1 

Two years later he was collated to the Archdeaconry 
of Huntingdon, the duties of which were, as fre- 
quently happened, performed by deputy. 

For the next few years we find Warham engaged 
in various diplomatic appointments, the most im- 
portant of which was the commission empowered to 
treat with De Puebla about the marriage of Prince 
Arthur (eldest son of Henry VII.) and Katharine 
of Arragon. 

He was made Bishop of London in 1501 A.D., 
being consecrated in the following year. Before 
taking possession of the see he resigned the office 
of Master of the Rolls, being somewhat weary of a 
statesman's life, and desiring to devote himself 
entirely to his episcopal duties. The Archbishop 
of Canterbury, Henry Dean, who (as Lord Keeper) 
held the Great Seal, fell ill in 1502 A.D., and War- 
ham was appointed as his successor in that secular 
capacity. The archbishop was a comparatively 
young man, and the new Bishop of London con- 
sented, as he thought, to undertake the responsi- 
bility temporarily. The archbishop, however, died 
unexpectedly a few months later, and Warham 
received from the king the offer of the primacy of 
All England. Three days before his translation was 
effected, the title of Lord Keeper was changed to 
that of Lord Chancellor. 

The feast given by the new Archbishop of Can- 
terbury to celebrate his enthronization surpassed in 
grandeur and magnificence any that had preceded 
it. When we compare the records with those which 
describe the frugal entertainment provided by War- 
ham's successor, Dr. Cranmer, we trace in the 



comparison the splendid conclusion of one era, and 
the humble commencement of a new epoch, in the 
history of the Church. 

Throughout his career, the hospitality of Warham 
was conducted on a scale of almost royal mag- 
nificence ; and, though every luxury was provided 
for his guests, his own tastes were simple and his 
habits abstemious. He was a great economist of 
time ; and it is related in his praise that he never 
played at dice, nor did he, like so many prelates, 
indulge in field-sports. 

Between Warham and King Henry VII. a close 
friendship existed, and the sovereign was frequently 
the archbishop's guest at Canterbury. 

With the death of the king, in 1509 A.D., the 
career of Warham as a statesman may be said to 
have terminated, although he retained the Great 
Seal until the year 1515 A.D. His action in regard 
to the marriage of Prince Henry (afterwards Henry 
VIII.) with the Lady Katharine has been widely 
misunderstood. Katharine was a daughter of Ferdi- 
nand, King of Spain. She had been married to 
Arthur, Prince of Wales (the eldest son of Henry 
VII.), but her husband had, it was alleged, died 
before the marriage was consummated. Warham 
took up the following position. As lord chancellor 
he opposed the marriage of Henry with Katharine 
on the ground that it would tend to cause an inter- 
national breach between England and Spain. As 
archbishop he protested against the papal dispen- 
sation obtained from the pope, alleging that if 
the previous marriage had been valid no earthly 
authority could override the Divine law which 


prohibited marriage with a deceased brother's wife ; 
but if the relations between Prince Arthur and 
Katharine had been merely a pre-contract, no papal 
dispensation was required. Warham officiated at 
the wedding, at which Katharine appeared, not as a 
widow, but in the dress and colours which betokened 
a virgin bride. 

In the year 1510 A.D. the archbishop was ap- 
pointed by the pope to present the young king, 
Henry VIII., with the "golden rose." The rose 
was dipped in chrism, perfumed with musk, and 
consecrated. The conferring of this gift was a token 
of amity on the part of the Roman pontiff, and 
amounted to the investiture of a royal personage 
with an order of national knighthood by a friendly 
sovereign. The presentation to the king took 
place with great ceremony in St. Paul's Cathedral. 

The relations between Warham and the Arch- 
bishop of York, Cardinal Wolsey, who was the 
adviser, the friend, and the boon-companion of the 
king, have been frequently misrepresented in history. 
Wolsey has been credited with having desired to 
supplant Warham in the office of chancellor, and 
the latter is supposed to have entertained feelings of 
petty jealousy and mortification when, in 1515 A.D., 
the Great Seal was transferred to the former. The 
real facts of the case are that, as Sir Thomas More 
writes .in a letter to Erasmus, " The archbishop has 
succeeded at last in getting quit of the chancellor- 
ship, which he has been labouring to do for some 
years ; " that during that period Wolsey was un- 
willing to add to his labours the duties of chan- 
cellor, and was anxious that the Archbishop of 


Canterbury should retain the office ; and that, through 
the gentleness, amounting almost to weakness, of 
Warham's character, the personal friendship, if not 
real affection, between the two men continued unim- 
paired. Some interesting correspondence, preserved 
among the documents in the Rolls House, throws 
considerable light on this point, which has been 
lost sight of by the majority of historians. 

Wolsey had many of the faults, as well as most 
of the merits, of a powerful, self-reliant, energetic 
mind. He was overbearing, dictatorial, and im- 
patient of contradiction. The yielding disposition 
of Warham, and his generous determination to avoid 
being led into a quarrel with the cardinal, explain 
why the inevitable disagreements which arose in 
certain public transactions did not develop into a 
personal rupture. 

Warham, who was at heart a Reformer, attempted 
the task of rectifying abuses in the ecclesiastical 
courts, which not only inflicted hardship on many 
who came for justice, but also brought the whole 
body of the clergy into contempt and disrepute. 
The judges in these courts were dependent for 
their remuneration upon fees, and upon the emolu- 
ments of office ; and it was a regular custom for 
the judge to receive money from suitors in his 
court, not necessarily to purchase a favourable 
decision, but to ensure an early hearing. Conse- 
quently a poor man's case was often delayed for 
years, because of his inability to pay the honora- 
rium. In February, 1507 A.D., Warham issued from 
Lambeth his regulations and statutes for the Court 
of Audience, which were designed to correct these 


abuses. But the opposition to reform in this re- 
spect was too strong. The archbishop, therefore, in 
order to meet the exceptional condition of affairs, 
was willing to recede for a time from h\s high 
position, and to place the power in the hands of 
the Archbishop of York as a papal plenipotentiary. 
The surrender of Warham's authority was only to 
be temporary, as (although the cardinal subse- 
quently obtained an extension of tenure for his life) 
it was originally agreed that Wolsey should exercise 
the legatine power only for seven years. 

The opposition to his appointment as legate did 
not proceed either from the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury or from the king, but from the pope, who 
was unwilling to invest the powerful minister of the 
King of England with additional authority ; and it 
is not too much to say that, except for the urgency 
of Henry VIII. in pressing his views on the un- 
willing pontiff, Wolsey would never have been made 
a cardinal. It is important to bear in mind the 
attitude of the king in this matter, viewed in the 
light of his subsequent action towards his favourite 
and towards the English clergy, as well as in refer- 
ence to the position he took up in later years as 
to the reformation of the Anglican Church. 

Warham, having done his utmost, as we have 
seen, to correct abuses in the ecclesiastical courts, 
proceeded to propose certain measures of reform 
in the Church. For this purpose he summoned the 
Convocation of .Canterbury to meet him at Lam- 
beth, in the year 1518 A.D. To his astonishment 
he received a most violent and angry letter from 
Wolsey, who regarded this as an invasion of his 


rights as legate. An interview took place between 
the two archbishops. Warham, as usual, gave way ; 
and the result was that a synod was called for the 
purpose of reforming the Church, although the sum- 
monses were not issued in the name of the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. The meeting was called in 
Wolsey's name, but was postponed for a year in 
consequence of the plague which was at the time 
raging in London. When the synod did at length 
meet, no business of any importance was transacted. 

In 1523 A.D. the Convocations were summoned 
that of the northern province being cited to as- 
semble in Westminster, to suit Wolsey's convenience 
in order that they might grant a subsidy to the 
Crown. The Convocation of Canterbury met in 
the chapter-house of St. Paul's, the writs having 
been issued by the primate. In the midst of their 
deliberations a messenger arrived, requiring their 
attendance before the lord legate. Warham again 
yielded ; but when Wolsey proposed to the amal- 
gamated Convocation that a large sum should be 
raised for the king, it was humbly represented to 
him that they could only vote money in their charac- 
ters as proctors for the clergy, and for that purpose 
they must return to St. Paul's, and act indepen- 
dently of the Convocation of York. The cardinal 
at once perceived that he had taken a wrong step, 
and withdrew. 

The rapid fall of Wolsey, when he expressed his 
inability to further the king's wishes in the matter 
of the divorce with Queen Katharine, is too well 
known to be repeated here. But the most astonish- 
ing and scandalous act in the drama is found in the 

\VAKI IAM. 87 

fact that King Henry proceeded against his favourite, 
and, subsequently, against the bishops and clergy 
who had acquiesced in his appointment as cardinal 
(solely because they had not dared to oppose the 
king's wishes), under the Praemunire Statutes. 

When Wolsey's overthrow was completed the 
Great Seal was again offered to Warham, but he 
declined it on the ground of advancing age and ill 
health. The chancellorship was thereupon conferred 
upon Sir Thomas More. 

Having ruined Wolsey, Henry VIII. turned his 
attention to the clergy, and demanded an enormous 
sum of money as a fine for having acquiesced in the 
authority conferred on the cardinal by his appoint- 
ment as papal legate. A controversy between the 
king and Convocation, extending over several years, 
resulted in the actual commencement of the Refor- 
mation by the reassertion of the royal supremacy, 
and the submission of the clergy, in 1531 A.D. In 
1534 A.D. the Convocation decreed that "the Pope 
of Rome has no greater jurisdiction conferred on 
him by God, in Holy Scripture, in this kingdom of 
England, than any other foreign bishop." Parlia- 
ment, a few years later, adopted the decision of the 
Church's representatives. 

On August 22, 1532 A.D., the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, who was over eighty years of age, ex- 
pired at the residence of his nephew at St. Stephen's, 

The character of Warham may to some extent be 
gleaned from the foregoing sketch of his life. His 
ability has been underrated because he was dwarfed 
by the overshadowing of the master-mind of Wolsey. 


He was moderate in all his actions ; without the skill 
to originate a great measure, but sagacious enough 
to see and applaud its wisdom when it was once 
proposed. Earnestly desirous of reforming abuses, 
he had neither the energy nor the force of character 
to carry out his plans in the face of opposition. 
The self-sacrifice shown in his relations to Wolsey 
was carried to an extreme, though it was dictated 
by humbleness rather than cowardice. The follow- 
ing words are the testimony of his friend Erasmus 
to his good qualities : " What genius ! what vivacity ! 
what facility in the most complicated discussions ! 
what erudition ! From Warham none ever parted in 
sorrow. How great is his humility ! how edifying 
his modesty ! He alone is ignorant of his eminence ; 
no one is more faithful or more constant in friend- 


By permission of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 



THOMAS CRANMER (l533~l556 A.D.). 

THOMAS CRANMER was born at Aslacton on July 2, 
1484 A.D. His early years were spent at a school 
where the tyranny and brutality of the master were 
so great as seriously to impair the memory and 
intelligence of the scholars, and he appears to have 
suffered throughout his life from the effects of the 
treatment he there received. At the age of fourteen 
he went up to Jesus College, Cambridge, and con- 
tinued to reside at the university for twenty-five 
years. Though not deficient in scholarship, he was 
never ranked among the men of learning, and for 
some years he confined his attention to preparing 
himself for the legal profession. He was elected a 
Fellow of his college in 1510 A.D. On his mar- 
riage he forfeited his fellowship ; but, his wife dying 
within twelve months, he was reinstated. Turning 
his attention to the study of theology, he was 
ordained in 1523 A.D. In 1528 A.D. he went, in 
his capacity as private tutor, to the home of two 
of his pupils at Waltham, in the neighbourhood 
of which Henry VIII. was residing. Meeting Dr. 
Gardyner, Secretary of State (afterwards Bishop 


of Winchester), and Dr. Fox, Lord High Almoner 
(afterwards Bishop of Hereford), at the house of his 
pupils' father, Cranmer discussed, and stated his 
opinion upon, the divorce question which had recently 
been brought into prominence. 

Briefly, the question was as follows : Queen 
Katharine had been married to Prince Arthur (eldest 
son of Henry VI L), who died shortly afterwards. 
Seven years later the widow became the wife of her 
husband's brother, on his accession to the throne as 
Henry VIII. When they had been married nearly 
twenty years, the king in consequence, probably, 
of his attachment to Anne Boleyn discovered 
that his conscience pricked him on account of his 
union with his sister-in-law. It will be remembered 
that the downfall of Wolsey was occasioned by 
his non-acquiescence in the king's desire for free- 
dom from his marriage vow. Archbishop Warham 
had been inclined, though passively, to side with 
Henry. The suggestion was made that the question 
should be referred to the pope, with a request for 
a dispensation to annul the marriage. But the 
supporters of the queen maintained that the first 
marriage had never been consummated ; that her 
union with Prince Arthur had, therefore, been merely 
of the nature of a contract ; and that, under these 
circumstances, there had been no impediment in 
the way of the marriage with her present husband. 
On the other hand, it was alleged that, as she had 
been the wife of the king's brother, it was necessary 
that the papal sanction for the union should be 
confirmed. But a further question arose to compli- 
cate the controversy. Was the law prohibiting 


marriage with two brothers in succession a regula- 
tion of the Church, or was it a law of God ? If the 
former, the pope's dispensation would hold good, 
but it could not override the latter. 

Cranmer's view, which he expressed in the con- 
versation above referred to, was that if Henry's 
marriage to Katharine was contrary to the Divine 
law, it was no marriage at all, and the king was at 
liberty to wed whom he pleased (provided it were 
not within the prohibited degrees) without refer- 
ence to Rome. This point could perfectly well be 
decided by the ecclesiastical courts of the National 
Church. If the canonists could prove that marriage 
with a deceased brother's wife was in opposition 
to the law of God, and evidence were given that 
Arthur had been married to Katharine, the king's 
cause would be gained. 

This statement of opinion having been repeated 
to Henry VI 1 1., Cranmer shortly afterwards received 
a summons to wait upon his Majesty at Greenwich, 
and he commanded him to produce a treatise in 
which his argument was to be supported by the 
authority of Holy Scripture, of the general councils, 
and of the Fathers. He accepted the hospitality of 
Anne Boleyn's father, the Earl of Wiltshire, at Dur- 
ham Place, overlooking the Thames, where he had 
the use of the magnificent library belonging to his 
host ; and was appointed one of the royal chaplains. 

After Cranmer's treatise had received the royal 
imprimatur, it was laid before the two Universities 
and the House of Commons. The author was next 
selected as advocate for the king on an embassy to 
the papal court. Although the pope postponed 


indefinitely apublic discussion of the divorce question, 
he treated Cranmer with every mark of respect, and 
made him " Penitentiary of England," i.e. the officer 
on whom was conferred the power of granting all 
papal dispensations. He remained abroad for some 
time, but returned to England in the spring of 
1531 A.D. In the following year, being again in 
Germany, he married, as his second wife, the niece 
of his friend, the Reformer Osiander. This fact goes 
far to corroborate Cranmer's own statement, that he 
never sought, desired, nor expected the primacy of 
the Church of England. 

At Warham's death, however, the king nominated 
Cranmer to the archbishopric, feeling that he was 
the man of all others who could render the most 
effective assistance in obtaining the divorce. The 
conge (Ttlire was issued ; the chapter proceeded to 
the election ; all the legal forms were prepared ; and 
on March 30, 1533 A.D., Thomas Cranmer was con- 
secrated at Westminster. The appointment was 
very unpopular. The new archbishop had done 
nothing to justify his extraordinary rise ; and the 
reason of his nomination to the see was well known, 
and proportionately resented, by those who felt 
indignant at the insult offered to the highest lady 
in the land. A writ is extant, issued by Henry in 
1534 A.D., calling upon the dukes, viscounts, barons, 
etc., to protect the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury 
during the visitation of his clergy. This shows the 
strong feeling there was against him. 

Crumwell, the king's favourite minister, had, in 
the mean time, obtained an Act of Parliament (which 
was designed to prevent the possibility of the final 


decision on the divorce question being further 
delayed by an appeal to Rome) rendering more 
stringent certain acts which had been passed in pre- 
vious reigns. It was there enacted that no appeals 
should be made outside the realm, but that the 
courts spiritual and temporal within the king's 
dominion should try, and decide, all causes testa- 
mentary, matrimonial, relating to tithes, oblations, 
obventions, and the like. 

It is interesting to notice how the determination, 
which had for many years been growing among 
clergy and laity alike, to restrict the aggressions 
and usurped authority of the papal see in England, 
received such powerful aid through the king's quarrel 
with Rome on a personal question. It is probable 
that the final rupture with the papacy, which the 
Reformation effected, would have been longer 
delayed (although it certainly would not have been 
averted) had it not been for the support which the 
powerful alliance of Henry, in serving his own ends, 
gave to the movement. 

The first public act of the new archbishop was 
that of presiding at the session of Convocation, which, 
after long and vehement debates on the various 
points submitted by the king, decided, by a majority 
of 253 to 19, that marriage with a deceased brother's 
wife was contrary to the law of God. 

In order that all the proceedings in connection 
with the divorce might present an appearance of 
justice and legality, Cranmer (probably at the royal 
instigation) wrote a letter to Henry, "praying the 
king's licence to put an end to all doubts with re- 
spect to the validity of the marriage with Katharine, 


by permitting him to hear and determine the cause 
of the divorce in his archiepiscopal court." To this 
request his Majesty graciously assented, cheerfully 
submitting to be judged by the primate, notwith- 
standing the tenacity with which he had always 
held to the royal claim to supremacy in all causes 
and over all persons, both ecclesiastical and civil. 

The judgment was delivered on May 23, 1533 A.D., 
in which it was decreed that the marriage with 
Queen Katharine was null and void. Cranmer, in 
his anxiety to meet the wishes of his royal master, 
gave little thought to the faithful and devoted wife 
who was thus degraded and insulted by a travesty 
of justice ; and the vehemence of the feeling which 
grew up throughout the country for a time placed 
the archbishop's very life in danger. To add to his 
unhappiness, the king, having obtained from the 
primate the service he required, treated him with 
studied neglect. 

One great step towards the reformation of the 
Church of England was taken when the royal 
supremacy was definitely established. It then only 
remained for the king and the primate to devise 
legislation which would meet the various difficulties 
as they arose. They did not seek to eradicate the 
Catholic religion ; on the contrary, each maintained 
his adherence to Catholicism, and desired to advance 
it. But both wished to separate it from Romanism. 

The sentence of excommunication pronounced by 
the Bishop of Rome upon the King of England, 
in consequence of the repudiation of papal authority, 
roused the nation, and excited a storm of indigna- 
tion. It was met by the decision of Convocation, 


which was soon followed by that of Parliament, that 
"the Bishop of Rome has no greater jurisdiction 
given him in this Realm of England than any other 
foreign bishop ; " and thus the Church of England 
was, by a synodical act, separated from the see of 
Rome, and released from the usurped dominion 
which she had never synodically recognised, and 
against which she had bravely struggled for several 

The circumstances connected with the trial of 
Anne Boleyn, and the reasons for Cranmer's action 
in the matter, are almost impossible to arrive at, 
owing to the meagreness of the records. There is, 
however, little doubt that the archbishop was kept 
without clear and official information of the real 
charges against the queen, and of the result of the 
court of inquiry. At the same time, we can hardly 
acquit him of a want of impartiality, in the easy 
compliance with the" wishes of the king which he 
displayed, when he practically consented to con- 
demn the unhappy wife of his royal master before 
proof of her guilt was adduced. 

The whole circumstances are so shrouded in 
mystery that it will probably never be known 
whether she was guilty or innocent of the charges 
made against her. At the same time, the archbishop 
must have realized that if the marriage had "always 
been without effect," as he adjudged it to have been, 
then Anne Boleyn could not with justice be con- 
demned to death for unfaithfulness (assuming the 
truth of the accusations) to a man who had never 
been her lawful husband. Convocation showed the 
same pliability as the primate ; and the decision 


was subscribed by both houses. The unfortunate 
queen was beheaded. 

For several years, commencing in 1535 A.D., the 
spoliation of the monasteries and religious houses 
progressed, to the satisfaction of the king, under 
his minister, Thomas Crumwell. With the excep- 
tion of the creation of six new sees, poorly endowed, 
and the establishment of Trinity College, Cambridge, 
almost the whole of the confiscated wealth was 
squandered in bribes, or went to enrich the coffers 
of the monarch. The restoration of a secular 
chapter at Canterbury, where the regulars of Christ 
Church had held sway since the Conquest, was 
preceded by the ridiculous exhibition of hostility 
against the memory of Thomas a Becket. The 
canonized primate was cited by the Attorney- 
General to answer to a charge of treason, contumacy, 
and rebellion, the summons being read at the shrine 
by a pursuivant for thirty consecutive days. As 
the saint showed no inclination to appear before 
his judges, the shrine was demolished, and the 
priceless treasures belonging to it were appropriated 
to the king. 

In 1539 A.D., after an unsuccessful conference with 
an embassy representing the foreign Protestants, 
who proposed that the Church of England should 
accept as its doctrinal formulary the Confession of 
Augsburg, the king promoted the passing through 
Parliament of the Statute of the Six Articles, the 
effect of which was temporarily to restore the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, the celibacy of the clergy, 
private masses, communion in one kind, and com- 
pulsory confession. The importance of this Act 


consists, not so much in its provisions (which were 
modified in 1543 A.D., and repealed in 1547 A.D.), 
as in the demonstration it affords of the state of the 
religious opinions of Henry VIII. and of Cranmer 
at that time. Though they were both willing to 
examine any proposal suggested by those who had 
come under the influence of the German Protestants, 
they were in no hurry, having secured the repudia- 
tion of papal supremacy, to overthrow doctrines 
and ceremonies in the Church, unless they were 
well assured that something better could be substi- 
tuted. The measure, though not strictly enforced, 
rendered it necessary for Cranmer to send his wife 
back to Germany, lest he might be proceeded 
against, for we have abundant evidence to show 
that the archbishop had at this time many bitter 
enemies. The failure of the conspiracy against him, 
through the personal support and protection of the 
king (which is so graphically described by Shake- 
speare), is too well known to need repetition. 

The domestic life of the primate was simple and 
regular. He rose at five o'clock, and occupied the 
first hours of the day in devotion and reading. At 
nine he received visitors, and transacted business 
till dinner at one. Later he received any suitor or 
petitioner who claimed his attention, after which 
he indulged in field-sports (if in the country) or in 
a game of chess until five, when he repaired to the 
chapel. Supper, and the society of his guests, filled 
up the evening until nine, when he retired to rest. 

The position taken up by Cranmer in regard to 
the English version of the Bible was such as to 
secure for him the gratitude of posterity. John 



Rogers, writing under the pseudonym of Matthew, 
had lately published a Bible in English, based on 
the translations of Tyndale and Coverdale. The 
archbishop approved of this version, and the royal 
injunctions of 1538 A.D. ordered that a copy should 
be set up in a convenient place in every parish 
church. The unwillingness of the king to allow Con- 
vocation to deal with and put forward an authorised 
translation of the Scriptures induced the primate 
to place the work in the hands of a committee of 
learned divines from the two universities, and subse- 
quently Cranmer's, or the " Great Bible," came into 
general use. This was to some extent superseded 
in the following reigns ; and, in spite of every effort 
on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities, the 
Church of England possessed no universally accepted 
version of the Scriptures until the reign of James L, 
when that translation appeared which is still in use. 
Cranmer was the leading spirit in the translation 
of the service-books into the vernacular. We are 
indebted to him for the first English Litany, issued 
in 1543 A.D., which, with very slight alterations, is 
practically that which we now use. He also took 
part in the production of " The Institution of a 
Christian Man," afterwards called " The Bishop's 
Book " a volume of instruction for the laity with 
which were incorporated the " Ten Articles," drawn 
up by Convocation in 1536 A.D., and intended to 
formulate the position of the Church of England on 
certain doctrinal and ceremonial points. He was 
the author of several of the " Homilies " the collec- 
tion of which was brought out under his direction 
shortly after the accession of Edward VI. 


The archbishop was the head of the revising com- 
mittee, by whom the First Prayer-book of Edward 
VI. was issued in 1 549 A.D. This, the first complete 
version in English of the service-books of the Church, 
gives clear evidence of the Catholic spirit by which 
the primate was prompted. As we have seen, he 
repudiated the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, 
but he had no desire to yield to the influence of the 
Protestant party by sweeping away those beliefs 
and practices which had come down to the Anglican 
Church from primitive times. The Second Prayer- 
book of Edward VI., put forward in 1552 A.D. 
shortly before the king's death, was also due, in 
some degree, to Cranmer, whose sacramental views 
appear to have undergone considerable alteration in 
the space of a few years. He changed from tran- 
substantiation to the Lutheran doctrine of consub- 
stantiation, and in 1550 A.D. he adopted the view 
of the Eucharist, which he set forth at length in 
his " Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of 
the Sacrament," wherein he asserts that there is a 
real spiritual presence conveyed to the believer, 
but discards many of the dogmas which mediaeval 
theology had built upon this premise. 

The accession of Mary to the throne, on the death 
of her half-brother, was the commencement of a 
veritable reign of terror. The archbishop soon felt 
the weight of the royal displeasure. The queen had 
never forgotten or forgiven the part he had taken 
in the divorce proceedings against her mother, 
Queen Katharine. In 1555 A.D., Cranmer, together 
with Ridley and Latimer, was tried at Oxford 
before a committee of priests, and the three divines 


were condemned for being guilty of heresy. A year 
and a half later the imprisoned primate was cited 
to appear at Rome before the pope within eighty 
days, and was shortly afterwards brought for trial 
before Dr. Brooks, Bishop of Gloucester, as the 
pope's representative. He denied the jurisdiction 
of a court presided over by a papal commissioner, 
and was remanded. In December, 1555 A.D., the 
Bishop of Rome issued sentence, condemning him 
for having brought in " the heresy of Berengarius, 
and the false and heretical doctrines of Luther," 
and appointing two bishops to degrade him from 
the archiepiscopal rank. In an unhappy moment 
of weakness the primate was induced to admit the 
authority of the pope in a paper commonly called 
his first recantation. Under the promise of re- 
storation to liberty, he signed paper after paper, 
repudiating his views on the Holy Eucharist, and 
denouncing the Protestant system. At length, when 
he realized that the queen had throughout intended 
to sacrifice him, he boldly announced his allegiance 
to the form of faith for which he had been con- 
demned, and was burnt at the stake on March 21, 
1556 A.D. 

The character of Cranmer is best judged from the 
facts of his life. His weakness and lack of courage 
it is impossible to deny ; yet few men could have 
passed unscathed through the trials which fell to 
his lot. The Church of England owes him an 
unceasing debt of gratitude for his scriptural and 
liturgical labours, of which we enjoy the fruit even 
to this day. 


By permission of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 


MATTHEW PARKER (l 559-1575 A.D.). 

MATTHEW PARKER was the son of William Parker 
a tradesman, and was born at Norwich on August 
6, 1504 A.D. His father died when he was only 
twelve years of age ; but his mother, who had in the 
mean time married again, sent him in due course to 
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where he took 
his degree in 1525 A.D., being ordained deacon and 
priest two years later. He was early distinguished 
as a scholar, and was elected to a fellowship of 
his college in 1528 A.D. He was appointed Master 
of Corpus, under royal mandate, in 1544 A.D., and 
shortly afterwards became Vice-Chancellor of the 

Parker had been in orders for several years when 
he first received a licence to preach, but it was not 
long before he attracted attention by the ability 
and eloquence of his sermons. In 1535 A.D. he was 
made chaplain to Anne Boleyn, for whom he enter- 
tained an affectionate regard, and by whom he was 
entreated, only a few days before her death, to 
watch over the interests of her daughter, afterwards 
Queen Elizabeth. He subsequently became chaplain 
to the king (Henry VIII.). For thirteen years he 
lived at Stoke-by-Clare, the deanery of which he 


held by virtue of his office as queen's chaplain. 
The threatened dissolution of the deanery and con- 
fiscation of its revenues were averted during the 
lifetime of Henry VIII. through the intercession of 
the Queen Consort, Katharine Parr, but were carried 
out under the Protectorate in 1547 A.D., when 
Parker was presented to the deanery of Lincoln. 
In June of the same year, notwithstanding that 
the Act which authorised the marriage of the clergy 
had not yet been passed, he married Margaret 
Harleston, to whom he had been engaged for seven 
years. A woman of refinement and culture, Mrs. 
Parker proved to be an "admirable wife, managing 
his household affairs with economy, while sharing 
her husband's spirit of hospitality and generosity. 

For a long period Parker resolutely declined the 
repeated invitations which were addressed to him, 
either directly or indirectly, by members of the 
Government, to take part in public affairs. His 
conduct in addressing the insurgents under Kett, 
and endeavouring to quell the insurrection, led to 
a renewal of these requests, which, however, were 
powerless to alter his decision. 

When Queen Mary ascended the throne, Parker 
was deprived of all his preferments, and lived a life 
of retirement, happy in the domestic peace and 
literary leisure he enjoyed, with no drawback save 
the uncertainty and anxiety lest at any moment he 
might be accused of heresy before the ecclesiastical 
judge by some informer desiring to curry favour at 

With the accession of Elizabeth his difficulties were 
by no means at an end, as the queen was obstinately 


opposed to the marriage of the clergy, while Parker 
was equally determined not to be separated from 
his wife and family, the latter consisting of two sons, 
two children having died in infancy. 

The religious parties in England at this time 
were numerous and divided. The prevalent idea 
in these days that all Catholics were Romanists, 
and all those who were not Romanists were Protes- 
tants, is entirely erroneous and misleading. In 
Parker's time, the Protestants were the reformed 
Church of England, i.e. those who " protested " 
against the usurpations of Rome, or, in other words, 
the Anglo-Catholics. Opposed to the English re- 
formers stood the Puritans, the representatives of 
Calvinism. During the reign of Elizabeth we find 
the establishment of the Romish sect without any 
hierarchy (which was only introduced during the 
present century), who represented, not the primitive 
Church, but the then existing Roman government. 
On the Continent, at this period, were various bodies 
of reformers Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, 
etc. between whom and the leaders of the Refor- 
mation in England there was no real sympathy ; 
the latter .desiring to retain their ecclesiastical 
system, after purging it from the additions of 
mediaeval superstition, while the former wished to 
sweep aWay the ancient fabric, and build a new 
sect upon its ruins. At the same time, the Puritan 
influence from abroad left its impress upon the 
tone and character of the second Prayer-book of 
Edward VI., that of 1552 A.D. 

It must be remembered that the Reformation was 
a movement from within the Church, and had been 


growing for nearly two centuries. The assertion 
made by some writers that the clergy generally 
were papists at heart, and joined the Reformation 
with great reluctance, is entirely without proof, 
and is opposed to all the facts of which we are 
cognisant. Out of a body of nearly 10,000 clergy, 
the number of those who were deprived under 
Queen Elizabeth for refusing to take the oath of 
supremacy, or for demurring to the English " offices," 
amounted only to 1 89, of whom no less than four- 
teen were bishops, these being almost entirely repre- 
sentatives of the " old learning." Thus the supporters 
of the statement that the Reformation was forced 
upon an unwilling Romanist clergy must either 
acknowledge themselves mistaken, or confess that 
those whom they uphold and admire were almost 
all hypocrites and cowards. The true historical 
view is that for a long period there had been a 
growing uneasiness throughout the country at the 
way in which successive kings had, for their own 
personal interests, played into the hands of the 
popes, and an increasing desire to be free from the 
accretions of Romanist dogmas, which had almost 
insensibly been superimposed upon the doctrinal 
and ceremonial position of the Anglican Church. 
The quarrel between the autocratic king, Henry 
VIII., and the papal see furnished exactly the 
opportunity for which the Church and nation had 
been waiting, and the quiet and peaceful manner 
in which the alteration was effected, under the 
favourable conditions of Elizabeth's reign, proves 
conclusively that the change in the religious cha- 
racter of the people was deep-seated and genuine. 

PARKER. 105 

Queen Elizabeth succeeded to the throne in 
November, 1558 A.D. Like her father and Cranmer 
she was a Catholic at heart, though she was as 
firmly determined as they were to resist the preten- 
sions of Rome. One of her first public acts was 
to open negotiations with the pope. Had the aged 
and almost imbecile Paul IV. been able to free 
himself from the unwise counsels of the French am- 
bassador, the future relations of the Anglican Church 
to Romanism might have been very different from 
what they became. But when his insolent reply 
was returned to the overtures of the queen, the 
final rupture became inevitable ; and from that 
time Elizabeth and her advisers were compelled to 
make considerable concessions to the foreign Pro- 
testants (the majority of whom were Calvin ists), 
in order to secure their support against Rome. 

Great difficulty was experienced by Cecil, the 
queen's favourite and confidential minister, in in- 
ducing Parker to emerge from his retirement and 
take his position in public affairs. His ill health, 
combined with his self-depreciation, made him most 
unwilling to come forward. He was, however, per- 
suaded to act on the Royal Commission appointed 
to consider the question of ecclesiastical reform. 
The queen and Cecil, and probably Parker him- 
self, desired the restoration, with slight modifications, 
of the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. But, pro- 
bably in deference to the advice of the latter, who 
saw that it was better to sacrifice something than 
to lose everything, the second Prayer-book was 
adopted as the basis of revision. 

The first business of Parliament was to substitute, 


at Elizabeth's initiative, the title of "supreme 
governor" for that of " Head of the Church," which 
her father had adopted. The Act of Supremacy 
encountered fierce opposition at the hands of the 
extreme papists and extreme puritans before it 
became law. The Spoliation Bills (the one attaching 
the firstfruits and tenths of ecclesiastical benefices 
to the Crown, and the other empowering the 
sovereign, on the avoidance of a see, to annex any 
of its landed property, giving in exchange certain 
impropriate tithes) were strenuously combated by 
the bishops, and only passed through the Commons 
by a. narrow majority. The Act of Uniformity, 
authorising the revised Prayer-book, was passed a 
few months later. Less than one hundred of the 
clergy refused to conform to its provisions. 

Cardinal Pole, who succeeded Cranmer as Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, died within twenty-four hours 
of Queen Mary. The necessity for establishing 
the sovereignty of Queen Elizabeth, and for taking 
measures to preserve the continuity of the primacy, 
was the cause of the delay in appointing a successor 
to the archbishopric. Parker's retiring disposition 
led him to decline the appointment when it was 
first offered to him, but he subsequently acquiesced, 
the congt d'ttire was issued on May 18, and the 
election was held on August I. The consecration 
of Parker took place in the Chapel of Lambeth 
Palace on December 17, 1559 A.D. It was con- 
ducted strictly in accordance with the second ordinal 
of Edward VI. The bishops who took part in 
his consecration were William Barlow, formerly 
Bishop of Bath and Wells, and now Bishop-elect of 


Chichester, who presided, and performed that por- 
tion of the ceremonial which, under ordinary circum- 
stances, would have devolved upon the metropolitan ; 
John Hodgkins, who had been consecrated in St. 
Paul's Cathedral by the Bishop of London under 
the old form, in accordance with the rites of the 
Sarum pontifical, as Suffragan Bishop of Bedford ; 
Miles Coverdale, who had been consecrated Bishop 
of Exeter in 1551 A.D. by Cranmer ; and John 
Scory, late Bishop of Rochester, and now Bishop- 
elect of Hereford. Barlow, Hodgkins, and Scory 
appeared in their episcopal vestments, Coverdale 
in a cassock, and the archbishop-elect in his scarlet 
robes, such as are now worn in Convocation. The 
sermon was preached by Scory ; and Bishop Barlow, 
when celebrating, was vested in a silk cope. Every 
detail of the consecration is preserved in Parker's 
register, written by himself; the Mandate for the 
consecration is preserved in the Record office ; and 
thus we have a contemporary and anticipatory 
refutation of the falsehoods many years aftenvards 
invented and propagated by certain unprincipled 
Romanists in the " Nag's Head Fable," which has 
been acknowledged to have been an absolutely un- 
true fiction by such learned and eminent Romanist 
writers as Charles Butler, Canon Tierney, and, 
above all, Dr. Lingard. 

The difference between the Churches of England 
and Rome was accentuated by the non-recognition 
of Elizabeth as a Catholic sovereign in the issue 
of invitations to the Council of Trent, and the 
refusal of the queen to allow the papal nuncio 
to land on her shores. The Anglican Church, 


continued to be what she always had been, the 
Catholic Church of this realm, although she had 
now definitely and finally broken away from the 
influence of, and purged herself from the errors she 
had learnt through her alliance with the Roman 

Four days after his own consecration, Arch- 
bishop Parker consecrated four new bishops in 
Lambeth Chapel; on January 21, 1560 A.D., five 
bishops ; and four more in March, to fill the 
unprecedented number of vacancies in the epis- 
copal sees. The plague which proved so fatal to 
the bishops at the close of Mary's reign had also 
thinned the ranks of the clergy to such an extent 
that many of the diocesans ordained men who ex- 
hibited the enthusiasm of piety without reference 
to their learning or other qualifications. The arch- 
bishop deprecated this course, and adopted the 
wiser plan of supplementing the clerical force by 
a contingent of lay helpers. 

In 1562 A.D. the celebrated "Apology" of Bishop 
Jewel appeared, and was soon translated into almost 
all the languages of Europe. In Mary's reign, 
Jewel had, under intimidation, renounced all that 
laid him open to a suspicion of Protestantism ; but 
soon after, repenting and recanting, he fled abroad. 
Having been appointed to preach at Paul's Cross 
in June, 1559 A.D., he took very high ground, main- 
taining the Catholicism of the Church of England, 
and declaring that where the Church of Rome 
differed from the Church of England, the former 
was mediaeval, the latter primitive. Being thus 
brought under the notice of Archbishop Parker, he 

PARKER. 109 

was elected to the see of Salisbury, and consecrated 
in 1 560 A.D. His " Apology " was a brave and com- 
prehensive defence of the position of the Anglican 
Church, and still ranks among the classical literature 
of Anglicanism. 

One of Parker's great works was to bring out, 
with the co-operation of a body of translators, a 
new version of the Scriptures called " The Bishops' 
Bible," which was, however, opposed by the Puri- 
tans, and was not " authorised " till 1604 A.D., a few 
years before the issue of our existing " Authorised 

The archbishop was also very fully occupied at 
this time in the preparation of the Articles. The 
"Thirteen Articles," setting forth the reforming 
opinions of the Lutheran divines, which were pub- 
lished in 1538 A.D., were never formally accepted, 
but were taken as a basis of revision by Cranmer, 
who produced "Forty-two Articles." These were 
approved by Convocation, and received the royal 
authority in 1553 A.D. ; but, on Mary's accession two 
months later, they were suppressed. In 1563 A.D., 
under Parker's direction, Thirty-eight Articles were 
issued, with the approval of Convocation only. 
These were again revised in 1571 A.D., when they 
assumed their present order and number. They 
were accepted by Convocation, sanctioned by Par- 
liament, and ratified by Queen Elizabeth, and have 
ever since been regarded as the test of orthodox 

The strong Puritan faction, which gave evidence 
of its vitality in the Convocation of 1563 A.D., re- 
ceived considerable support from the championship 


of the Earl of Leicester, an unscrupulous profli- 
gate, whom the queen regarded with such feelings 
of affection as gave him a powerful influence over 
her. The Puritans deliberately conducted Divine 
service with slovenly irreverence. Some would not 
even kneel at the Holy Communion, others would 
not wear a surplice. Elizabeth was roused to anger, 
and ordered the archbishop to confer with his suffra- 
gans, and to take such measures as were requisite 
to establish a reverent uniformity. But she would 
give him no support or assistance, fearing lest she 
should thereby offend Leicester, and incense the 
party who looked up to him ; and consequently 
she shifted the whole onus and responsibility on 
to the shoulders of the primate and the bishops. 

Parker, in consequence, decided that his powers 
were sufficient by themselves to warrant the issue of 
a code of rules which would secure " decency, distinc- 
tion, and order for the time." A book of " Adver- 
tisements" was accordingly drawn up, containing 
articles ranged under four heads ; for doctrine and 
preaching ; for administration of prayer and sacra- 
ments ; for certain orders in ecclesiastical policy ; 
and for outward apparel of persons ecclesiastical. 
They were compiled in 1564 A.D., published early in 
the following year, but not generally circulated until 
March, 1566 A.D. They were quoted as authori- 
tative in the Canons of 1571 A.D., although it is 
doubtful if they ever received the queen's sanction ; 
but they were afterwards ratified by Charles I. 

In April, 1570 A.D., a Bull was signed by Pope 
Pius V., excommunicating Elizabeth, denouncing 
her as a usurper, and commanding her subjects to 

PARKER. 1 1 1 

violate their oaths of allegiance. This was found 
posted on the gates of London House. The ad- 
vanced Catholics in the ranks of the clergy seem 
to have remained faithful to the throne at this crisis, 
and the queen's confidence in their loyalty was 
expressed in the manifesto she issued at the time. 
The Commons, however, desired to subject all priests 
to the test of declaring their assent to the Thirty- 
nine Articles. The Act requiring this was passed 
in spite of the disapproval of Elizabeth, although she 
ultimately gave way and granted her royal consent. 

The Romish schism in England dates from the 
same year, its adherents being governed by priests 
with special commissions from the pope, and then 
by bishops in partibus. The practice of giving 
English titles to the intruding Roman episcopate 
dates from the year 1850 A.D. 

The first Puritan schism took place in 1573 A.D. 
In a few years several subdivisions among the sect 
occurred, such as the " Precisians " and the " Brown- 
ists," the latter called after Robert Brown, who 
subsequently founded the Independents or Congre- 

In addition to his literary labours in connection 
with the translation of the Bible, the revision of 
the Liturgy, and the preparation of the Articles 
and Homilies, Parker was the writer or editor of a 
very large number of important works. His history, 
" De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae," published 
in 1572 A.D., displays an extraordinary amount of 
research. It is marvellous how the archbishop, 
with the unceasing pressure of his duties as primate, 
during one of the most critical epochs of the Church's 


history, was able to find the leisure for an amount of 
literary work which would have done credit to one 
whose whole time was devoted to study and writing. 

Parker's death took place on May 17, 1575 A.D., 
his beloved and faithful wife having pre-deceased 
him by five years. He was buried in the Chapel 
of Lambeth Palace, in a tomb which he had pre- 
pared during his lifetime. The Puritans, who hated 
him when living, pursued him with their malignity 
even after his death. In the troublous times of 
Charles I. his body was dug up and thrown on to 
a dunghill, the lead of the coffin being sold. After 
the restoration of Charles II., Sir William Dugdale, 
hearing of the circumstances, mentioned the matter 
to Archbishop Sancroft. A careful search was made, 
and the bones were recovered and decently interred 
in the body of the chapel, just below the sanctuary 
steps. The following suggestive inscription can still 
be seen : " Corpus Matthaei Archiepiscopi tandem 
hie quiescit." 

In the death of Archbishop Parker the Church 
of England lost the leader who had so wisely guided 
her course through a period of storm and perplexity, 
and whose claims on the gratitude of posterity are 
enhanced by the fact that during his lifetime he 
received little save hostility and indifference. Arch- 
deacon Hardwicke sums up the archbishop's cha- 
racter and work when he says that "almost entirely 
by his skill the vessel he was called upon to pilot 
was saved from breaking on the rock of mediaeval 
superstitions, or else from drifting away into the 
whirlpool of licentiousness and unbelief." 


By permission of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 


WILLIAM LAUD (1633-1645 A.D.). 

THE career of Edmund Grindal, who had been 
successively Bishop of London and Archbishop of 
York, and succeeded Parker as Archbishop of Can- 
terbury in 15/6 A.D., does not call for any special 
mention. He revived the Puritan practice of " pro- 
phesyings," which had been suppressed by his pre- 
decessor, and was, in consequence of his refusal to 
obey the queen's order that they should be discon- 
tinued, confined to his house and suspended for six 
months. In 1582 A.D. he tendered a qualified sub- 
mission, and died in the following year. 

John Whitgift, Bishop of Worcester, was next 
chosen by Elizabeth as primate, and the appoint- 
ment was a judicious one, as he proved himself a 
wise and firm disciplinarian at a time when the 
turbulence of the ultra-Protestants required to be 
checked with vigour. Finding that many of the 
clergy were dissenters at heart, he drew up a series 
of canons, embodying the three tests which had 
been enforced by royal authority in 1583 A.D. The 
three tests were that all in Holy Orders should 
acknowledge the Prayer-book, the Articles, and the 



royal supremacy. This aroused a storm of indig- 
nation from the Puritans, who proceeded to alienate 
sympathy from themselves by publishing scurrilous 
libels on the bishops. A strong Act was passed in 
1593 A.D., emanating from the Commons, for en- 
forcing discipline. 

The closing years of Elizabeth's reign were 
marked by the growing popularity of the Church, 
which was maintained under James I. in spite of 
the Presbyterian views with which he was credited. 
The most important result of the Hampton Court 
Conference of 1604 A.D., over which the king pre- 
sided, was that it led to a revision of the Bible, 
which was brought out in 1611 A.D., and soon, from 
its superiority to other versions, gained universal 
acceptance, and still exists as our " authorised " 
version, although it was never " authorised " either 
by Convocation, or by Parliament, or by the king 
in Council. To Whitgift, who died shortly after 
the conference, " the Church of England owes, under 
God, the preservation of its order and discipline, 
and the rescue of its property from the covetous 
grasp of the queen and courtiers." 

Bancroft's policy, though successful in driving 
nonconformity into concealment, was injudicious, 
inasmuch as it alienated many from Anglicanism 
by reason of its interference with the liberty of the 
subject. In 1610 A.D. Episcopacy was restored in 

Abbot, a bigoted man of Calvinistic principles, 
succeeded Bancroft in the same year. He lost 
favour at Court before the death of James I. ; and 
for some years after the accession of Charles I. he 

LAUD. 1 1 5 

\vas practically no longer primate, the king himself 
having placed Laud at the head of ecclesiastical 
affairs from the commencement of his reign. 

William Laud was born at Reading on October 
7, 1573 A.D., and at the age of sixteen went up 
to St. John's College, Oxford. He became Fellow 
of his college in 1593 A.D., and was ordained in 
1600 A.D. In 1611 A.D. he was elected President 
of St. John's, in spite of the strenuous opposition 
of Archbishop Abbot, and the same year he was 
appointed by the king to be one of his chaplains. 
Four years later he was presented to the deanery 
of Gloucester, where, notwithstanding the fierce 
and even turbulent resistance of the Puritans, he 
was enabled to repair the fabric of the cathedral, 
and introduce decency and order into the conduct 
of the services. The Bishop of Gloucester at that 
time was an inflexible Calvin 1st, and refused ever 
again to enter the cathedral in consequence of 
these reforms. 

Laud was consecrated as Bishop of St. David's 
in 1621 A.D., but he was unable for some time to 
attend to his episcopal duties in his remote diocese, 
his presence being almost continually required at 
Court, where his abilities had been recognised by 
the king. His character as a divine was established 
through the controversy he held with the Jesuit, 
John Percy, whose historical name is Fisher ; and 
his judgment and statesmanship were appreciated 
by Buckingham, whose esteem and friendship he 
retained in spite of the successful opposition he 
showed towards the proposed misappropriation of 
the funds of the Charterhouse, which the minister 


had proposed with a view to replenishing the royal 

The death of King James, which occurred in 
1625 A.D., precipitated a political reformation, the 
tendency of the times being opposed to the abso- 
lutest theory of government. The accession of 
Charles I., a man of amiable disposition and virtuous 
life, but utterly devoid of the ability of the states- 
man, was powerless to prevent the rebellion, in 
which the principles of the Church were proscribed, 
her clergy persecuted with fearful severity, and her 
temples wrecked by spiteful and triumphant fanatics. 

The marriage of the young king to Henrietta 
Maria, daughter of the King of France, an uncom- 
promising Romanist, was most unfortunate for the 
country, which was in no mood to grant concessions 
to or encourage those who favoured the papacy. 
Charles himself was a pronounced and consistent 
Churchman, and zealous in the interests of Angli- 
canism, but was unable to tolerate any form of 
dissent, and least of all the Calvinistic school, now 
popular among the English laity. This disposition 
naturally laid him open to the suspicion of a lean- 
ing towards Rome, and gave force to the Puritan 
dissatisfaction which culminated in the cry of "No 
Arminianism ! " which was as popular as the cry of 
" No popery ! " 

One of the first matters which engaged the atten- 
tion of the new Parliament was an attack on Dr. 
Montague, Rector of Stamford Rivers, for having, 
in a book he wrote controverting the statements 
of certain Jesuits, described the Roman Church as 
a branch of the true Church, although a corrupt 


branch. When the king asked the Commons to 
vote supplies to carry on the war against Spain, on 
which the Duke of Buckingham had rashly entered, 
they only granted an insignificant sum, and reverted 
to the case of Montague. Charles thereupon angrily 
dissolved that Parliament and called another to- 
gether the following year, but with no better success, 
for it impeached the Duke of Buckingham, to save 
whom the king at once dissolved this second Parlia- 
ment, and had recourse to forced loans in order to 
raise money for his expeditions. 

In 1626 A.D. Andrewes, the great and saintly 
Bishop of Winchester, died. Laud succeeded him 
in the office of Dean of the Chapel Royal, which 
brought him into still closer relations with the king. 

The third Parliament of Charles was called to- 
gether in 1628 A.D., in order that the king might 
obtain funds for prosecuting the war with France, 
in which the English troops had hitherto been 
worsted. Before the Commons would vote the 
necessary subsidies they drew up the Petition of 
Right, which placed an effectual check on the abso- 
lutism of the monarch, and the king was compelled 
by necessity to assent to its provisions. The legis- 
lature next drew up the "Remonstrance" against 
the " Arminian " clergy directed specially against 
Bishop Neile of Winchester, and Bishop Laud at 
which Charles showed his resentment by proroguing 
Parliament and promoting Laud from the see of 
Bath and Wells to that of London, and appointing 
Dr. Montague to be Bishop of Chichester. At this 
time Laud suffered an irreparable loss in the death, 
by the hand of an assassin, of his friend the Duke 


of Buckingham, whose place he took as the adviser, 
counsellor, and intimate friend of the king. 

Among the many and varied reforms effected by 
Laud was that of the University of Oxford, by the 
framing of the new statutes, and in other ways. 
His labours and zeal were recognised by his being 
elected, in 1630 A.D., as Chancellor of the University. 

In his new diocese of London Laud detected 
the rapid growth of Calvinism, and on his advice 
the king caused the Thirty-nine Articles to be re- 
published, with a royal declaration (drawn up by 
the Bishop of London) prefixed to them, affirming 
that Convocation is the proper body to order and 
settle ecclesiastial affairs ; that only the plain, literal 
and grammatical sense should be put upon the 
Articles ; and that all disputation respecting them 
should cease. 

The Puritans bitterly opposed the declaration, 
and in deference to the views of the extreme party, 
the Commons voted the "Vow," in which they 
"claimed, protested, and avowed for truth" the 
Calvinistic sense of the Articles, adding that "we 
reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians, and 
all others, wherein they differ from us." This third 
Parliament was, in 1629 A.D., dissolved by the king, 
who governed without the advice of the legislature 
for eleven years. 

The most unpopular, and perhaps the most repre- 
hensible, part of Charles's system was the active 
employment of the High Commission and Star 
Chamber Courts. The former had been established 
in 1559 A.D., the latter as early as 1487 A.D. The 
barbarous treatment of the libellers sentenced in 


these courts, however gross the offence of the 
prisoner, cannot be defended. It can only be ex- 
plained as part of the system of absolutism, in 
ecclesiastical as well as civil matters, which the king 
exercised so unwisely and unconstitutionally that it 
led to the revolution, and to his own violent death. 
But the position of Laud in the matter has been so 
grossly misrepresented, that it is necessary to point 
out that his influence in the Star Chamber was 
simply that of the one spiritual lord in a council of 
seven members, and we have no evidence to show 
that he ever exerted his influence in the direction 
of severity. 

On the other hand, for those proceedings in Church 
affairs which the Puritans stigmatized as "innova- 
tions " in religion, Laud may be considered almost 
exclusively responsible. He endeavoured to enforce 
the law, in regard to doctrine and ritual, as it stood, 
and in the difficulties of his task he undoubtedly 
made use of the royal assumption of prerogative 
which, if it had been allowed to grow, would in- 
fallibly have endangered the religious liberty of the 
nation. Laud, however, had to protect the Church 
from dangerous and unscrupulous foes, who were 
bent on the destruction of its Catholicity, and on 
metamorphosing it into a Calvinistic sect. 

In 1633 A.D., on the death of Archbishop Abbot, 
Laud was appointed to the primacy. For some 
years the direction of Church affairs had been 
practically in his hands ; first, during the period of 
Abbot's suspension, when Laud was at the head of 
the commission formed to discharge the functions 
of the office ; and later, when the archbishop's age 


and infirmities almost entirely incapacitated him 
from active work of any kind, and his duties to a 
large extent devolved upon the Bishop of London. 

The position of the Lord Primate was at that 
time a very high one, and was enhanced by the 
important secular positions which he held. English 
nobles and foreign ambassadors paid their court to 
him at Lambeth. He did not look for happiness 
in his new life indeed, he seems from the first to 
have regarded it with apprehension. In a letter to 
Strafford he surmises that his health would suffer 
from want of exercise, as he would now slide over 
in a barge from Lambeth to Court instead of jolt- 
ing over the stones from London House to White- 
hall. We have few glimpses of his domestic life, 
but amongst other pets he seems to have owned a 
tortoise. The shell of this tortoise has been pre- 
served in the Muniment-room at Lambeth Palace, 
bearing an inscription which tells that it belonged 
to Archbishop Laud, that it lived for a hundred 
and twenty years, and that it was at last " mortally 
killed " by a gardener. 

One of Laud's. first acts, after succeeding to the 
archbishopric of Canterbury, was to hold a metro- 
political visitation of all the dioceses in the province. 
His efforts to protect the Holy Tables from desecra- 
tion were violently opposed in many places. An 
innovation had recently been made by which they 
had been moved into the body of the church, and 
the result was that they were frequently used as a 
receptacle for cloaks and hats, or as suitable places 
for transacting the churchwardens' accounts. Laud 
ordered that the Holy Tables should be replaced 

LAUD. 121 

altar-wise against the east walls, and fenced off by a 
railing from the body of the chancel. The bishops, 
with the exception of Bishop Williams of Lincoln, 
loyally supported him in the matter, and gradually 
decency and order were restored in the churches. 

Laud then proceeded to make considerable efforts 
to ameliorate the condition of the London clergy. 
The poverty of a considerable -number of them was 
deplorable. With the assistance of Juxon, who 
succeeded him as Bishop of London in 1633 A.D., 
Laud was enabled to effect a vast improvement, 
which would have been carried further had not the 
troubles of the time increased upon him. 

The archbishop's attention was now called to the 
state of Ireland, the history of which, during his 
primacy, was so closely associated with the memory 
of his friend Strafford. However severely we may 
be inclined to criticize the injudicious, and some- 
times even the tyrannical exercise of his authority, 
it cannot be denied that, under Strafford, Ireland, 
which till then had been only a trouble and expense 
to the Crown, became a source of riches and strength. 
There was much in common between the two men 
in their administration. Both were actuated by a 
desire to promote the public good ; both were careful, 
however harshly they acted, to keep within the 
limits of the existing powers of government ; both 
were careless of popularity. Neither of them ever 
wavered for a moment in his determination to do 
what he felt to be just and right, although they 
were not, perhaps, always inclined to allow mercy 
to influence their policy. 

In Scotland, whither Laud had accompanied 


King James in 1620 A.D., and Charles in 1633 A.D., 
no attention was paid to Catholic antiquity or to 
uniformity in worship. The archbishop decided if 
possible to introduce the English liturgy, but was 
overruled, and a Scotch Service-book was drawn up, 
with the approval of the Scotch divines, containing 
a certain number of variations from our Anglican 
Prayer-book. Unfortunately the king compiled a 
body of canons for the Northern Church without 
consultation with the Scottish clergy, and sent it 
for their acceptance on his own authority. The 
introduction of this Prayer-book, on July 23, 
1637 A.D., in the Cathedral of St. Giles, Edinburgh, 
was the signal for a riot. A wild mob collected, 
broke the windows of the church, and maltreated 
the clergy, the bishop barely escaping with his life. 
This was the prelude to a general uprising through- 
out Scotland, which ended in the rebellion. On 
March i, 1638 A.D., the "Solemn League and 
Covenant " was read aloud in Grey Friars' Church, 
Edinburgh, and almost universally subscribed. The 
terms of the document pledged all who assented to 
it " to effect, without respect of persons, the extir- 
pation of prelacy." 

The king, finding a war with Scotland inevitable, 
was forced to summon Parliament in order to 
obtain subsidies. The House, however, declined to 
treat of supply, and clamoured for a committee of 
religion. Charles thereupon dissolved, after a 
month's session, what is called the "Short Parlia- 
ment." Laud was unfairly and falsely accused of 
advising the king to take this step, and a mob of 
five hundred ruffians attacked Lambeth Palace ; 

LAUD. 123 

but the archbishop, having been forewarned, took 
measures to repel them. 

According to custom, Convocation should have 
been dissolved concurrently with Parliament. Now, 
however, Convocation continued to sit, Laud's hands 
being strengthened by a new writ authorising the 
members to act as a synod in order to vote money 
for the king's necessities and to make new canons, 
one of which was intended to prevent Scotch dis- 
affection from spreading into England by imposing 
an oath on the clergy that they would approve and 
maintain the doctrine, discipline, and government 
of the Church of England. The " et cetera " clause 
in this oath (being merely an abbreviation for the 
list of Church officials) was regarded as implying 
some secret popish design, and led to such discon- 
tent (accentuated by the defeat of the royal forces 
by the Scotch) that the king was compelled to sum- 
mon, on November 3, 1640 A.D., what is known as 
the " Long Parliament," the title referring to the fact 
that it sat continuously for nearly twenty years, until 
March, 1660 A.D. It has been described as the most 
bloodthirsty tribunal that ever assembled until the 
period of the French Revolution. One of its first 
acts was to impeach Strafford for treason. Failing 
to condemn him legally, the Commons, in their 
vindictive hate, proceeded against him by the 
method of impeachment, and he was beheaded on 
May 12, 1641 A.D. 

The faith that Laud always had in dreams and 
omens is remarkable. He mentions his dreams as if 
they were matters of importance, and seems some- 
times to regard them as almost prophetical. They 


are mentioned in his diary, and often with some 
exclamation, such as "God grant better things!" He 
tells how, on his entering the guard-room at Lam- 
beth Palace a few days before his foes proceeded to 
extremities against him, he found that the cord by 
which his portrait was suspended had broken, and 
the picture was lying face downwards on the floor, 
and he added the note, " God grant this be not a 
bad omen ! " 

The toils of his enemies were now rapidly closing 
round the archbishop. On December 18, 1640 A.D., 
he was by the House of Commons denounced as a 
traitor, and committed to the custody of the gentle- 
man usher of the Black Rod. In the February 
following he was brought up to the House of Lords 
to hear the articles of impeachment read aloud. 
His speech in defence is powerful and pathetic. 
What grieved him most and roused his indignation 
was the charge of unfaithfulness to the Church. He 
was committed to the Tower on March I, 1641 A.D. 

The next movement of the Puritan revolutionists 
was to impeach thirteen prelates for the part they 
took in promulgating the late canons. On Feb- 
ruary 6, 1642 A.D., a Bill was passed excluding 
the bishops from the Upper House and depriving 
them of all authority. Charles in his weakness gave 
his consent to this measure, as he had acquiesced in 
the murder of Strafford. 

For nearly three years the archbishop, an old man 
of seventy years, bowed down with the cares and 
anxieties of his life, in enfeebled health, deprived 
of the companionship of friends or the solace of 
books, was kept a prisoner, and not even allowed 

LAUD. 125 

to send for money to provide the simplest comforts. 
In vain did he appeal to the House to allow his 
trial to proceed. His enemies pursued him with 
malignant hatred, but as they were unable to find 
evidence against him they dared not bring their 
accusations to an issue. His trial began in Novem- 
ber, 1643 A.D., and did not conclude till the follow- 
ing October. During that period he was subjected 
to the vilest insults and abuse that petty spitefulness 
could invent. On November 13, 1644 A.D., he was 
voted by the House of Commons to be guilty of 
high treason. Six peers only attended to pass the 
Bill of attainder in the Upper House. He was 
beheaded on Tower Hill on January 10, 1645 A - D - 

Thus died should we not rather say, thus was 
shamefully and foully murdered ? a man who has 
shed a lustre on the high and sacred office which 
he held. That Laud was despotic no one will deny, 
but he exerted his powers to enforce (without over- 
stepping) the law upon those who had sworn to 
observe and keep it. He was a loyal and devoted 
son of the Church of England, which owes much 
to his loving and fearless labours. Nothing can 
extenuate or excuse the malice, the injustice, or 
the perjury of those who, in their littleness and 
fanaticism, raved against one whose superiority, 
religious as well as moral, bred in them envy, 
hatred, and malice. He has been well described 
as "a man who could and did make great mis- 
takes, but who never knowingly chose the lower 



WILLIAM BANCROFT (1678-1693 A.D.). 

ON the same day that the Lords passed the ordi- 
nance of attainder against the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, William Laud, they likewise passed an ordi- 
nance for the abolition of the Book of Common 
Prayer, and for establishing the "Directory of 
Public Worship," in which rules were laid down for 
the conduct of religious services without liturgy 
or formula:; of any kind. This attack upon the 
doctrines of the Church, together with the shameful 
and lawless execution of the archbishop, was rapidly 
followed by an assualt upon the monarchy. What- 
ever may have been the vacillation and weakness 
of King Charles L, it must be remembered that 
on one point he remained firm. Up to the last he 
might have saved his life, if only he would have 
consented to the establishment of Presbyterianism 
as the national religion. But he absolutely and 
resolutely declined to place the Anglican Church 
on a level with sectarianism. " I am firm," he said, 
" to Primitive Episcopacy, not to have it extirpated 
if I can hinder it." And again, " I have done what 
I could to bring my conscience to a compliance 


with their proposals, and cannot, and I will not 
lose my conscience to save my life." 

The five years which succeeded the murder of 
the king formed a period of wild religious anarchy, 
during which every indignity and persecution that 
could be devised were heaped upon the clergy. Not 
only were they turned out of their livings, but in 
November, 1655 A.D., Oliver Cromwell, who has been 
described as a model of Christian tolerance, issued 
an edict prohibiting the employment of those clergy 
who had been ejected or sequestered, of fellows 
of colleges, or schoolmasters ; and ruling that no 
such persons were to engage in tuition, serve as 
chaplains, or administer the sacraments. 

And yet, in spite of the tyranny of the Puritan 
fanatics, who had temporarily usurped the power of 
government, there were certain priests who openly 
performed the duties to which they had been or- 
dained, in defiance of these unrighteous edicts. As 
late as Christmas Day, 1657 A.D., John Evelyn was 
present at a celebration of the Holy Communion in 
Exeter Chapel, London, which was interrupted by 
an invasion of soldiery, who levelled their muskets 
at the communicants, "as if they would have shot 
us at the altar." Another instance of courageous 
defiance of the orders of the usurping Parliament 
is shown in the conduct of the Rev. George Bate, 
Rector of Maidsmorton, in Buckinghamshire, who 
christened children, and performed the marriage 
ceremony according to the rites of the Church of 
England, during the whole of the Protectorate of 

On the restoration of Charles II. the Church and 


her clergy resumed their position and functions. 
The Savoy Conference, which was an unsuccessful 
attempt to bring about a compromise between 
Anglicanism and Presbyterianism, was followed by 
a careful revision of the Prayer-book, 1662 A.D. 
Though as many as six hundred verbal and other 
alterations were made, the majority of them were 
of no doctrinal significance, nor did they materially 
change the character of the liturgy, which was then 
cast into the exact form which we use at the 
present day. 

Notwithstanding the prevalence of immorality at 
the court of Charles II., the position of the Church 
of England, and her influence over the nation, made 
steady advance, although this was in some measure 
checked by the rise of Latitudinarianism towards 
the close of this reign. 

William Juxon, Bishop of London, who attended 
Charles I. at his execution, was made Archbishop 
of Canterbury at the Restoration, the see having 
been vacant since the death of Laud. He died in 
1663 A.D., and was succeeded by Gilbert Sheldon, 
who held the primacy for fourteen years. 

William Sancroft, the next archbishop, was born 
at Fressingfield, in Suffolk, in 1616 A.D. In due 
course he went up to Cambridge, where he entered 
at Emmanuel College, becoming a Fellow of the 
college in 1642 A.D. The following year, under 
pressure from the Scotch Covenanters, the " Solemn 
League and Covenant" (pledging those who sub- 
scribed it to effect, " without respect of persons, the 
extirpation of prelacy ") was forced upon the nation 
(i.e. on all persons above the age of eighteen) by 


order of Parliament. Sancroft's refusal to sign the 
document caused him to lose his Fellowship. 

For several years he travelled in France and Italy, 
where he acquired some valuable knowledge of 
the political conditions of European countries, and 
also devoted himself to theological studies. Return- 
ing to England at the Restoration, Sancroft was 
almost immediately appointed University Preacher, 
and two years later was elected Master of Emmanuel 
College. In 1663 A.D. he became Dean of York, 
and the following year he was transferred to St. 

A vast sum of money had been raised and ex- 
pended on the restoration of old St. Paul's before 
the rebellion broke out, but the triumph of the 
Puritans stopped the work, and the money that 
remained was seized and confiscated, so that the 
cathedral church was neglected and damaged to 
such an extent as to reduce it to the ruined con- 
dition into which it had fallen before the episco- 
pate of Laud. 

The first work of the new dean was to take 
steps to restore the old Gothic church, but the 
disastrous plague of the next year frustrated his 
designs. In Evelyn's diary of August 27, 1666 
A.D., we find the following entry : " I went to St. 
Paul's Church, where, with Dr. Wren, the Bishop of 
London, the Dean of St. Paul's, and others, with 
several expert workmen, we went about to survey 
the general decays of that ancient and venerable 
church, and to set down in writing the particulars 
of what was fit to be done with the charge thereof. 
. , . We had a mind to build the steeple with a 



noble cupola, a form of church-building not as yet 
known in England, but of wonderful grace." Un- 
fortunately the Great Fire of London, which broke 
out the following week, reduced the cathedral to a 
heap of rubbish. 

Without delay the Dean of St. Paul's, together 
with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop 
of London, decided on producing, with a view to 
its restoration, " a design, handsome and noble, and 
suitable to all the ends of it, and to the reputation 
of the city and nation, and to take it for granted 
that money will be had to accomplish it." The 
proposal was communicated to Dr. Christopher 
Wren, then Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, and 
the dean contributed liberally towards the carrying 
out of the plan. 

In November, 1677 A.D., Archbishop Sheldon 
died, and Dean Sancroft was promoted to the 
primacy over the heads of all the bishops. He 
was a devoted Churchman, sincere and earnest, and 
a good administrator. Though it is probable that 
he owed his appointment largely to the influence 
of the Duke of York, yet he gave proof of the in- 
dependence of his character by seeking an interview 
with the king's brother, shortly after his elevation 
to the primacy, when he earnestly exhorted the 
duke to abandon the Romish religion, and be recon- 
ciled to the Church of England. 

The next few years were chiefly remarkable for 
the plots to kill the king. The most notable of 
these were the popish conspiracy, real or imaginary, 
to introduce papal authority, revealed by Titus 
Gates in 1678 A.D., which was answered by a new 


Test Act, excluding Romanists from sitting in either 
House of Parliament ; and the Rye House plot in 
1683 A.D., for alleged complicity in which Lord 
Russell and Algernon Sidney were executed. 

On February 6, 1685 A.D., King Charles II. 
died, after a brief sickness. Up to the last his 
real religious convictions were unknown. He was 
attended during his last hours by several of the 
bishops. Archbishop Sancroft, we are told, " made 
a weighty exhortation to him, in which he used a 
good degree of freedom," while the saintly Bishop 
Ken "applied himself much to the awaking the 
king's conscience." But the king refused to re- 
ceive the Holy Communion, and it is said that 
a Romanist priest named Huddleston, who had 
assisted Charles in his escape after the battle of 
Worcester, was smuggled into his presence to ad- 
minister to him the last rites of the Roman Church. 

The Duke of York, who succeeded his brother 
on the throne as James II., hastened to pledge 
himself to defend and support the National Church, 
although he took the earliest opportunity of demon- 
strating that he did not intend to withhold his 
allegiance from the Church of Rome, by publicly 
attending " Mass." The archbishop has been blamed 
for consenting to the command that at the corona- 
tion he should omit the Communion Service and 
the ceremony of presenting the sovereign with an 
English translation of the Bible. But this course 
was at least more reverent than to have allowed the 
sacrament to be profaned by insisting on its recep- 
tion by one who did not hesitate to regard it with 


The king's avowed partiality to the Church of 
Rome, the severity and barbarity of his treatment 
of the prisoners captured in Monmouth's rebellion, 
and his persecution of Presbyterians and Noncon- 
formists, all tended to increase his unpopularity. 
But he had prorogued Parliament, and had no in- 
tention of calling it together again. The courts of 
law were his obsequious tools. There was only one 
power in the State from which he had anything to 
fear, and that power was the Church of England. 
It was the Church which, at this critical juncture, 
saved the liberties of the country. The London 
pulpits rang with denunciations of Romanism, and 
the cry was taken up, and pamphlets issued, in 
every part of the land. Whereupon the king used 
his power as supreme ordinary to prohibit preaching 
on controverted points of doctrine. The disregard 
of this injunction by Dr. Sharp, Dean of Norwich 
and Rector of St. Giles', and the support which 
the dean received from Dr. Compton, Bishop of 
London, against whom the king's anger was conse- 
quently turned, gave rise to the following important 

The High Commission Court of Queen Elizabeth, 
which had made itself specially obnoxious to the 
Puritans during the primacy of Laud, had been 
abolished in July, 1641 A.D. The accession of 
Charles II. had reinstated such spiritual tribunals 
as the Court of Arches, the Consistory Courts, etc., 
but he declared the High Commission Court in- 
capable of existence. James II., in defiance of the 
Act, reconstituted it, to consist of four laymen and 
three bishops, the primate being appointed one of 


the episcopal commissioners. But although Sancroft, 
whose loyalty and respect for the kingly office were 
almost a second nature to him, declined to take 
part in- proceedings which were absolutely illegal, 
and manifestly designed to compass the ruin of 
the Church, it is a matter of surprise and regret 
that he should have asked to be excused merely on 
the plea of ill-health and numerous engagements, 
more especially as there exist documents in his own 
handwriting, proving the constitution of the court 
to be contrary to law, and we know, from his sub- 
sequent conduct, that he was certainly not devoid 
of courage. By a most shameless process of in- 
timidation, the king obtained a majority on the 
commission for the condemnation of the Bishop of 
London, who was suspended from the exercise of 
his office. 

Finding himself unable to bend the loyalist clergy 
to his will, James determined to effect a great coali- 
tion of Romanists and Dissenters. In April, 1687 
A.D., he published a "Declaration for Liberty of 
Conscience," suspending all penal statutes against 
Romanists and Dissenters, abolishing religious tests, 
and pardoning all who were undergoing penalties 
for their peculiar beliefs. But this ruse did not 
succeed. The clergy were roused to indignation, 
while many of the leading Nonconformists joined 
with them in denouncing the document as insidious 
and illegal. 

The king thereupon resolved to precipitate a crisis 
by republishing on May 4, 1688 A.D., the above- 
mentioned "Declaration," appending thereto an 
order that the bishops were to cause it to be read 


in all the churches and chapels throughout their 

The primate at once showed himself fully equal 
to the occasion, and took a decided line against 
the unconstitutional and humiliating course which 
the royal injunction imposed upon the Church. 
He summoned the most eminent of the London 
clergy to meet him at Lambeth, and wrote a circular 
to the bishops earnestly desiring them to come with 
all possible speed. After careful deliberation, it 
was unanimously decided that it was expedient 
that the clergy should not publish the Declaration. 
Having come to this determination, a petition to 
the king was drawn up, stating that the " Declara- 
tion is founded upon such a dispensing power as 
hath been often declared illegal in Parliament . . . ; 
and is a matter of so great moment and consequence 
to the whole nation, both in Church and State, that 
your petitioners cannot in prudence, honour, or con- 
science, so far make themselves parties to it, as the 
distribution of it all over the nation, and the solemn 
publication of it once and again, even in God's 
house, must amount to in common and reasonable 
construction." The petition was written in the 
archbishop's own hand, and signed by himself and 
the following six bishops, viz. Lloyd of St. Asaph, 
Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and 
Wells, White of Peterborough, and Trelawney of 
Bristol. Six other bishops, viz. London, Norwich, 
Gloucester, Salisbury, Winchester, and Exeter, ap- 
pended an " approbo " with their signatures during 
the following week. 

It was late in the evening of May 18 when this 


petition was finally drawn up. As the Declaration 
was ordered to be read in the churches on May 20, 
no time was to be lost. The six bishops arrived at 
Whitehall at ten o'clock at night, and requested an 
interview with the king. Sancroft did not accom- 
pany them, as he had been struck off the Privy 
Council, and forbidden to appear at Court, since his 
refusal to act on the High Commission Court. 

The king readily admitted the bishops, anticipat- 
ing a petition of a very different character. When 
he read the document he expressed himself both 
astonished and irritated. As he folded it up he 
exclaimed, " Here are strange words. This is a 
standard of rebellion. I did not expect such usage 
from the Church of England." On Sunday, May 20, 
only four incumbents throughout the whole of 
London read the Declaration. Bishop Sprat of 
Rochester, who was also Dean of Westminster, read 
it in the Abbey, but the congregation had dispersed 
before he could finish. Throughout the country 
the clergy followed the example of their London 
brethren, and less than two hundred incumbents (out 
of ten thousand) promulgated the hateful document. 

It was not to be supposed that James, who was 
known to be a man of obstinate temper, would 
allow the matter to drop. Accordingly, on the 
evening of May 27, the archbishop and his six co- 
signatories were summoned to appear on June 8 
before his Majesty in Council. Acting on the advice 
of the Lord Chancellor, Jeffries, the king made the 
petition the ground for an action for libel. The 
bishops pleaded their privileges as peers, and refused 
to enter into recognisances. They were thereupon 


committed to the Tower. The public excitement 
was intense, the river-banks (it being considered 
safer, in view of the strong popular feeling, to con- 
vey them by water than through the streets) being 
thronged by a sympathetic crowd. Their prison 
was attended like the presence-chamber of royalty, 
and the trial at Westminster, which was held on 
June 29, is said to have been witnessed by half the 
nobility of England. When at ten o'clock the next 
morning the jury returned into court with a verdict 
of "Not Guilty," the enthusiasm of the nation was 
indescribable. Congratulations poured in to the 
primate from all quarters, the most significant of 
which were those from William of Orange, the king's 
son-in-law, and from the Presbyterians of Scotland. 
The same day a document was despatched in- 
viting the Prince of Orange to come over to the 
assistance of the Church and nation. While the 
bishops and many leading Churchmen, strong in 
their support of the principle of Divine right, 
desired no more that that William should act as 
regent, the national sentiment was in favour of 
James's deposition. On September 30 William 
issued a declaration that, as husband of Mary, he 
was coming with an army to uphold the " Protestant 
religion." At length the king realized his danger, 
and in his extremity he sought counsel of the 
bishops, and attempted to conciliate the Church. 
By the advice of the prelates he dissolved the High 
Commission Court, reinstated the Fellows of Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford, whom he had illegally ejected, 
and removed the Romanists from the Privy Council ; 
but he declined to yield his claim to the power of 


dispensing with the laws, and refused to call Parlia- 
ment together. William's manifesto, stating that 
he came at the request of the lords spiritual and 
temporal, was placed in James's hands. Sancroft 
and the other bishops indignantly vindicated the 
loyalty of the bench, but would not sign a " Declara- 
tion of Abhorrence " against William's expedition. 
The Prince of Orange landed at Torbay on Novem- 
ber 5, and marched unopposed to Exeter ; where- 
upon the king, finding himself deserted on all hands, 
took safety in flight. A Convention Parliament was 
summoned, met on January 22, 1689 A.D., and de- 
clared that, as James had deserted the nation, the 
throne should be settled on William and Mary as 
joint rulers. On February 13 they were crowned 
king and queen. 

In the deliberations of the house of Lords at 
this time there was much division of opinion. The 
venerable primate, who should at all costs have 
given the benefit of his valuable counsel, absented 
himself, in spite of urgent invitations, from all their 

He felt deeply the difficult position in which he, 
with the bishops and clergy, was placed. King 
James, who despised and delighted to humiliate 
them, was the sovereign to whom they had sworn 
allegiance. Could they, although they knew that 
to support him would be to endanger the Church, 
so far transgress their oath of allegiance as to sup- 
port the Dutch prince in opposition to their lawful 
monarch ? The appointment of William as regent 
commended itself to them as a compromise, but Par- 
liament vetoed the proposal (insisting that William 


should be king or nothing), and required a new oath 
of allegiance to William and Mary, which was to 
be taken by August I. The archbishop, together 
with Bishops Ken, Turner, Frampton, Lloyd, White, 
Thomas, Lake, and Cartwright, and about four 
hundred of the clergy, refused to comply, and were 
relegated to poverty and disgrace. 

These Nonjurors, as they were called, though small 
in numbers, included some of the most saintly and 
energetic of the prelates, and some of the most 
learned and highly gifted of the Church's divines. 

The aged primate, having declined to take the 
oath, still remained at Lambeth, and, by the forbear- 
ance of the Government, was allowed to continue in 
possession, keeping up his full archiepiscopal state, 
until October, 1690. 

At length he was compelled by process of law 
to leave Lambeth. He retired to his native place, 
Fressingfield, where he lived contentedly and cheer- 
fully on 50 a year. He died on November 24, 
1693 A.D. 

The character of Archbishop Sancroft is somewhat 
complex. He was a devoted Churchman, and a 
zealous guardian of the Church's doctrine and rights. 
His desire to avoid strife led him, on more than one 
occasion, to lay himself open to the charge of pusil- 
lanimity and vacillation. But when a clear question 
of principle was at stake, his courage and firmness 
were unshakable. His pilotage of the Church of 
England, at one of the most critical periods of her 
history, has earned for his memory the gratitude and 
affection of all true lovers of the Anglican Church. 


By permission of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, 

( 139 ) 


WILLIAM HOWLEY (1828-1848 A.D.). 

SAXCROFT was succeeded in the primacy by Tillot- 
son, Dean of St. Paul's, who, on the deprivation 
of the Nonjuring bishops, was promoted to the 
archbishopric of Canterbury. Tillotson and Burnet, 
Bishop of Salisbury, may be regarded as the two 
chief divines of the Latitudinarian School. 

The reign of William and Mary is chiefly notice- 
able for the endeavour to bring about a "good 
agreement between the Church of England and all 
Protestant Dissenters." - With this end in view, the 
"Toleration Bill" was passed in March, 1689 A.D., 
relieving dissenting laymen from the pressure of 
those Acts which had made absence from Divine 
service a crime. The "Bill for Union," providing 
for the admission of Presbyterian ministers to Church 
preferment, was, however, rejected by the House of 
Commons, who desired the matter to be referred to 
Convocation. The synod was accordingly summoned, 
and firmly opposed the revolutionary measures 
brought forward by the king. In consequence of 
the action of the Lower House, Convocation was 
silenced for ten years, till 1701 A.D. The members 


were again cited to meet during the reign of Queen 
Anne ; but in 1717 A.D., under George L, the renewal 
of the licence for the transaction of business was 
refused, although the Convocation was always sum- 
moned with Parliament, passed a dutiful address to 
the Crown, and was adjourned. Thus, for one 
hundred and thirty-seven years, the deliberative 
representative assembly of the Church of England 
was practically suppressed. 

The reigns of the four Georges are conterminous 
with the condition of stagnation in the life of the 
Church of England. The Lutheran proclivities of 
George L, combined with his immoral life, augured 
ill for any efforts on his part on behalf of the 
Anglican Church. The latitudinarianism and eras- 
tianism of the bishops, the spread of heresy (chiefly 
with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity) among 
Dissenters, and to some extent also among Church- 
men, and the prevalence of religious indifference 
among all classes, mark out the eighteenth century 
as one of the saddest epochs of the Church's history. 

This state of things is accountable for the rise 
and success of Methodism. The founder of this 
system lived and died a devoted son of the Church 
of England, in spite of her apathy and spiritual 
deadness. At the present day, when the sect which 
bears the name of Wesley, and the smaller bodies 
that have seceded from it, take up a position of in- 
dependence, and sometimes even of hostility, to the 
Church which they deserted, the origin of Metho- 
dism is obscured and misunderstood. John Wesley 
desired nothing more than to awaken and stir up 
a spirit of religious enthusiasm within the Church, 


and the enormous influence which he wielded, 
and the quickening of spiritual fervour which 
resulted from his efforts, saved the country from 
relapsing into a state of dead unbelief. Strange as 
it may seem, the Methodist revival laid the founda- 
tion for the Tractarian movement, although they 
approached the same end by such very different 
processes. The latter has been described as "not 
antagonistic but supplemental" to the former, 
" holding quite as strongly the necessity of conver- 
sion, justification by faith, and the supremacy of the 
Scriptures ; but also bringing into prominence those 
doctrines which had been somewhat undervalued, 
viz. the doctrine of the sacraments, of faith showing 
itself by works, of Church authority, and the Apos- 
tolical succession." 

When John Wesley was at the height of his 
popularity, William Howley was born, in 1765 A.D. 
He was the son of the Vicar of Ropley, in Hamp- 
shire, a small parish about ten miles from Win- 
chester, and was educated at the historic school 
founded by William of Wykeham. Thence he went 
to Oxford, where he had a distinguished career, 
being appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at 
his University in 1809 A.D. 

Four years later, in 1813 A.D., William Howley 
was promoted to the bishopric of London. In his 
Primary Visitation Charge the following year he 
gives us an insight into the character and reputa- 
tion of the clergy, at a time when the improvement 
in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs was be- 
ginning to show itself. He speaks of them as being 
" respected and respectable as a body for piety, for 


learning, and conscientious attention to their pastoral 
care, and abounding with members distinguished in 
an eminent degree by all the qualifications which 
bestow attraction or dignity on intrinsic worth;" 
and five years later he confirms the opinion he then 
held. " A body," he says, " more truly respectable 
for learning and piety than the clergy of this diocese 
will not easily be found." 

In 1828 A.D. the Duke of Wellington, who was 
then Prime Minister, nominated the Bishop of 
London for the primacy, and Dr. Howley became 
the eighty-eighth Archbishop of Canterbury. One 
of his earliest public acts after his appointment was 
to take up a position antagonistic to the Govern- 
ment on the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, 
which, however, was passed in April, 1829 A.D. 

Although his strong Conservative principles led 
him to offer a strong opposition to the great Reform 
Bill of 1832 A.D., he co-operated cordially with the 
Whig Government in the foundation of the Eccle- 
siastical Commission. The removal of the dis- 
abilities attaching to various religious bodies out- 
side the National Church, which Parliament had 
effected by slow gradations, had led to a series ot 
determined attacks upon her by these emancipated 
sects. They sought to benefit themselves at her 
expense. So loud was the clamour, and so persis- 
tent were the fabrications circulated as to the fabu- 
lous wealth of the Church, that in 1831 A.D. a Royal 
Commission was appointed to inquire into and 
report upon the exact condition of the ecclesiastical 
revenues. There were many anomalies in the then 
existing distribution of these revenues which were 

HOWLEY. 143 

seen to require modification and readjustment, 
and accordingly, in 1836 A.D., the Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners, with the Archbishop of Canterbury 
at the head, were incorporated as a permanent body 
to deal with the estates belonging to the cathedral 
bodies, and (after setting aside a sum sufficient for 
the payment of specified incomes to the bishops and 
the deans and chapters, and for providing for them 
suitable residences) to apply the residue to the aug- 
mentation of poor livings and the endowment of 
new parishes in populous districts. 

King George IV., who died June 26, 1830 A.D., 
was succeeded by his brother, William IV., who 
reigned for seven years. The coronation service 
was performed by Archbishop Howley, who also 
officiated at the coronation of Queen Victoria on 
June 28, 1838 A.D., a year after her accession. 

The archbishop was one of the first of her sub- 
jects whom the young queen saw after she had so 
unexpectedly attained to her new position. The 
following narrative will be of interest : " The 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Howley, and the 
Lord Chamberlain, the Marquis of Conyngham, left 
Windsor for Kensington Palace, where the Princess 
Victoria had been residing, to inform her of the 
king's death. It was two hours after midnight when 
they started, and they did not reach Kensington 
until five o'clock in the morning. They knocked, 
they rang, they thumped for a considerable time, 
before they could rouse the porter at the gate ; they 
were again kept waiting in the courtyard, then turned 
into one of the lower rooms, where they seemed 
forgotten by everybody. They rang the bell, and 


desired that the attendant of the Princess Victoria 
might be sent to inform her Royal Highness that 
they requested an audience on business of importance. 
After another delay, and another ringing to inquire 
the cause, the attendant was summoned, who stated 
that the princess was in such a sweet sleep that she 
could not venture to disturb her. Then they said, 
'We are come on business of State to the queen, 
and even her sleep must give way to that.' It did ; 
and to prove that she did not keep them waiting, 
in a few minutes she came into the room in a loose 
white nightgown and shawl, her nightcap thrown off, 
and her hair falling upon her shoulders, her feet in 
slippers, tears in her eyes, but perfectly collected 
and dignified." 

Soon after Bishop Rowley's translation to the 
primacy, the Oxford movement, as it has been 
called, sprang into existence. The dangers which 
apparently threatened the Church, due partly to the 
indifference and hostility of ministers of State, and 
partly to the attacks of Dissenters and Romanists, 
were responsible for the formation, in 1833 A.D., of 
an " Association of Friends of the Church." This 
was inaugurated through the initiative of the Rev. 
Hugh James Rose, who was chosen by the arch- 
bishop as his domestic chaplain and confidential 
friend. The objects of the Association, as drawn 
up at the Hadleigh Conference, were " (i) To 
maintain inviolate the doctrines, the services, and 
the discipline of the Church ; and (2) to afford Church- 
men an opportunity of exchanging their sentiments, 
and co-operating together on a large scale." An 
address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, drawn up 

HOWLEY. 145 

by Mr. Palmer, was signed by about seven thousand 
clergy, and presented in the Library of Lambeth 
Palace on February 5, 1834 A.D. It was couched in 
vague terms, but its purport was to deplore the 
growth of latitudinarian sentiments, and the preva- 
lent ignorance concerning the spiritual claims of the 
Church, and to express the assurance, on the part 
of the signatories, of their devoted adherence to 
the Apostolical doctrine and polity of the Church, 
and their deep-rooted attachment to her venerable 
liturgy. His Grace received it with much courtesy, 
saying that he "anticipated good effects from this 
public declaration of the sentiments of the clergy." 
He added that he "regarded it as a direct con- 
tradiction of misrepresentation and falsehood of 
different kinds which have been widely circulated, 
as an avowal of your unshaken adherence to our 
National Church, its faith, and its formularies, and 
as a testimony of your veneration for the episcopal 
office, and of your cordial respect for your bishops." 

A similar address, prepared by the laity, and 
signed by two hundred and thirty thousand heads 
of families, was presented to the archbishop the 
following May. These two documents, and the 
address to the king which was subsequently for- 
warded, had a marked effect in bringing about a 
reaction throughout the country in favour of the 
Church of England, and in preparing the way for 
the deepening of the spiritual life of the nation, 
which has made such vast progress during the last 

The Tractarian movement, after exciting a vast 
amount of public attention for several years, reached 



its culminating point with the issue of Tract 90, in 
1841 A.D. Although the archbishop maintained a 
keen interest in the progress of the controversy, and 
during the early years (until 1838 A.D.) was brought 
into close touch with every development of it through 
his chaplain, the Rev. H. J. Rose, his natural 
timidity of character, or, to speak more correctly, 
his retiring disposition, prevented him from taking 
a prominent part in the matter, although his sym- 
pathies were to a great extent on the side of the 

The same hesitation proved a somewhat unfor- 
tunate hindrance to the primate's action in promot- 
ing the important Church legislation which marked 
the commencement of the present reign. The Act 
for abolishing Pluralities and Non-residence (i & 2 
Viet. c. 1 06), and the Church Discipline Act (3 & 4 
Viet. c. 86), were both indebted to the archbishop 
in no small measure for the form in which they 
were finally passed, although his influence was 
exercised privately rather than publicly. 

In 1840 A.D. the Bishop of London (Dr. Blom- 
field) published a " letter to the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury upon the formation of a fund for endowing 
additional bishoprics in the Colonies." At that 
time (twelve years after his accession to the primacy) 
the number of our colonial and missionary bishoprics 
was ten. At the present time the number is close 
upon ninety. The primate sent out invitations for 
a meeting at Willis's Rooms early in 1841 A.D., which 
was numerously attended. The meeting resulted in 
the inauguration of the Colonial Bishoprics Fund, 
of which the Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone was one 

HOWLEY. 147 

of the original treasurers, and still holds the office. 
A large fund was raised, the Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge contributing 10,000, the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 7500, 
the Church Missionary Society 600 a year for 
New Zealand, the Queen Dowager .2000, the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury 1000, and the Bishop of 
London 1000. 

In the same year (1841 A.D.) the archbishop was 
concerned with the foundation of the bishopric of 
the United Churches of England and Ireland in 
Jerusalem. The history of this arrangement is of 
some interest. The proposal was suggested by the 
King of Prussia, who made it the subject of a special 
mission to the Queen of England, and of a particular 
communication to the primate. His Majesty offered 
to make a donation of 15,000, yielding an income 
of 600 a year, for the support of the bishop, who 
was to be nominated alternately by the Crowns of 
England and Prussia, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
having an absolute right of veto. A special Act of 
Parliament (5 Viet. c. 6) was passed on October 5, 
1841 A.D., called the Jerusalem Bishopric Act (under 
which all our Anglican missionary bishops have 
since been consecrated), empowering the Arch- 
bishops of Canterbury and York, assisted by other 
bishops, to consecrate British subjects, or the sub- 
jects or citizens of any foreign kingdom or state, 
to be bishops in any foreign country, and, within 
certain limits, to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over 
the ministers of British congregations of the United 
Church of England and Ireland, and over such other 
Protestant congregations as may be desirous of 


placing themselves under the authority of such 
bishops. The prelate so appointed was to be subject 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury as metropolitan. 

Accordingly, Archbishop Howley, having laid the 
proposal of the King of Prussia before the bishops, 
proceeded, on November 7, 1841 A.D., to conse- 
crate, in the chapel of Lambeth Palace, the Rev. 
Michael Solomon Alexander, Hebrew Professor 
at King's College, London. This action of the 
archbishop's, although supported by Dr. Hook and 
other High Churchmen, and the Rev. F. D. Maurice, 
in the hope that it might be the means of intro- 
ducing Episcopacy into the Prussian Evangelical 
body, was strongly opposed by the majority of the 
High Church party, on the ground that it was an 
unlawful interference with the Episcopal jurisdiction 
of the Bishop of the Eastern Church in Jerusalem. 
Dr. Newman published a formal protest against the 
action of the primate, and declared that the act of 
schism for such he deemed it to be was one of 
the final causes which induced him to leave the 
Church of England. " It was one of the blows," he 
wrote in his "Apologia," "which broke me." 

Four years later Bishop Alexander died, and 
the King of Prussia nominated Samuel Gobat, a 
Lutheran divine, who was consecrated in Lambeth 
Chapel on July 5, 1846 A.D., by the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, assisted by the Bishops of London, 
Lichfield, and Calcutta. Since the death of Dr. 
Gobat's successor, Bishop Barclay, in 1881 A.D., the 
Prussian arrangement has lapsed, and the present 
bishop is supported by our Anglican Church So- 
cieties, and appointed by the primate. 

HOWLEY. 149 

Towards the close of Archbishop Howley's life 
two controversies arose, which excited much feeling 
at the time. The first of these had reference to 
Dr. Hampden, the second to the Rev. G. C. 

Hampden was tutor of Oriel College, Oxford, 
and in 1834 A.D. he published a pamphlet on the 
admission of Dissenters to the University, in which 
" Socinians are placed on a level with other Chris- 
tians." To the astonishment and disgust of the 
University, he was nominated Regius Professor of 
Divinity by the Government two years later. A 
band of zealous Churchmen succeeded in obtaining, 
in the Convocation of the University of Oxford (by 
a majority of 474 votes to 94), a censure of the new 
professor. In 1847 A.D. Lord John Russell nomi- 
nated Hampden to the bishopric of Hereford. A 
remonstrance addressed to the Prime Minister by 
thirteen bishops and a large number of the clergy 
was ignored. When the electiqn to the see of Here- 
ford was " confirmed " in Bow Church, the objectors 
made their protest, but this was ruled out of order. 
The last hope of those who opposed the appoint- 
ment rested in the primate, who might refuse to 
consecrate. But at this juncture Archbishop Howley 
died, and his successor shortly afterwards, on March 
26, 1848 A.D., consecrated Dr. Hampden in Lam- 
beth Chapel. 

The other controversy above referred to was that 
which arose in the case of the Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
This clergyman was, in June, 1847 A.D., presented 
by the Lord Chancellor to the living of Brampford 
Speke, in the diocese of Exeter. The bishop of 


the diocese refused to institute him, on the ground 
that he was unsound in doctrine in denying that 
regeneration is in all cases wrought by baptism. 
Mr. Gorham appealed to the Court of Arches, but 
the judgment which upheld the bishop's decision was 
not delivered until 1849 A.D. The Privy Council 
afterwards reversed the ruling of the Arches Court 
in favour of Mr. Gorham. 

Archbishop Howley took an active part in main- 
taining the religious instruction in elementary 
schools. Until the Education Act of 1870 A.D., 
the education of the children of the poor had been 
carried out almost entirely by the Church, during 
the eighteenth century by the Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge, and after 1811 A.D. by the 
" National Society for Promoting the Education of 
the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church." 
In 1833 A.D. the House of Commons was persuaded 
to set aside a grant of .20,000 a year for assisting 
elementary education in England. Six years later 
a Committee of Council was formed to administer 
the grant, and a scheme was proposed by this body 
which deliberately ignored all distinctive religious 
teaching, allowing only those children whose parents 
desired it to have special instruction in Church 
doctrine, while the rest were to be taught a system 
that was supposed to include the truths on which all 
professing Christians were agreed ! This scheme was 
to be introduced into all schools which received a 
Government grant. It was passed by a majority of 
five in the House of Commons, but, on the motion 
of the archbishop, it was defeated by two to one 
in the Upper House. 

HOWLEY. 151 

The archbishop possessed considerable architec- 
tural taste, and throughout his life he employed 
his gifts in this direction to good purpose. When 
Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford he rebuilt 
the professor's house. After his appointment to 
the see of London, he set to work to reconstruct 
the official residence in St. James's Square, and also 
considerably renovated Fulham Palace. But his 
most extensive operations in this respect were 
carried out at Lambeth. While preserving with 
appreciative reverence, and carefully restoring, all 
that was really ancient and historic in the grand 
old pile, he remorselessly swept away the patch- 
work jumble which successive primates had added 
during the preceding century and a half. In place 
of these he erected, at a cost of about ^"60,000 
half of which came out of his own private purse 
the present magnificent range of buildings, extending 
eastward from Cranmer's Tower, and presenting, 
both in the main courtyard and in the garden, an 
imposing battlemented frontage, effectively broken 
by irregular projections of bay windows and 
oriels, and relieved by graceful turrets. As soon 
as these improvements were completed, he under- 
took the restoration of the chapel, removing the 
bald high panelling, and substituting for the flat 
ceiling a lofty groined roof. He also converted 
the old dining-hall, known as Juxon's Hall, into 
a library. 

The primacy of Archbishop Howley formed the 
transition period between the new and the old 
regime, and closed the princely days of the arch- 
bishopric. Until the formation of the Ecclesiastical 


Commission, which fixed the income of the see, the 
revenues had been very large, and the archbishops 
had been accustomed to maintain a semi-royal state, 
and dispense unlimited hospitality. 

In the midst of the stir of religious excitement 
and controversy the archbishop passed peacefully 
away, after a brief illness, in January, 1848, and 
was buried on the north side of the chancel in the 
little church at Addington. 

William Howley, who had presided over the see of 
Canterbury for close upon twenty years, possessed 
a high order of intellect, and a cultivated mind. 
He was a finished classic, and a theologian of no 
mean order. His gentleness of character led him 
to be always seeking after peace, but behind it was 
a firmness of purpose which sternly refused to accept 
a compromise where a matter of principle was in- 
volved. During the momentous years of his primacy 
he controlled the religious movements of the age 
with such retiring and unassuming power that the 
fact of his great influence was frequently overlooked. 
He has been described by Bishop Doane of New 
Jersey as " the impersonation of Apostolic meekness, 
sweetening Apostolic dignity." To his active co- 
operation (as we have seen) was greatly due the 
rapid increase of the colonial episcopate, and 
although he was prevented by sickness from taking 
part in the memorable consecration of five bishops 
in one day the Bishops of Barbadoes, Gibraltar, 
Tasmania, Antigua, and Guiana on St. Bartholo- 
mew's Day, 1842 A.D., in Westminster Abbey, he 
was able, five years later, to consecrate four bishops 
at once in the same noble building. At the date 

HOWLEY. 153 

of his accession to the primacy there were only five 
colonial bishoprics. Before his death no less than 
twenty-two bishops were spread over our colonial 
empire. It must also be borne in mind that, mainly 
in consequence of his efforts, his primacy marks the 
time at which the pulpits of the English Church 
were first opened to the bishops and clergy of Scot- 
land and America. 

His episcopate was an eventful one, and the 
development of Church life, and the avoidance of 
many threatened dangers and difficulties, were due 
in no small degree to the gentle courtesy and loving 
firmness which were his chief characteristics. 



JOHN BIRD SUMNER (1848-1862 A.D.). 

JOHN BIRD SUMNER was born in 1780 A.D. He 
was the eldest son of the Vicar of Kenilworth, and 
grandson of the provost of King's College, Cam- 
bridge. His early years were spent amid the pic- 
turesque and peaceful surroundings of his country 
home, where, under the influence and teaching of 
his father, he gained his first insight into the wonders 
of God's work in nature, which bore such fruit in 
the researches and writings of his after-life. 

At the age of twelve he was sent to Eton, where 
his career was successful without being specially 
brilliant. Here he came in contact with many 
boys whose friendship, once made, continued firm 
and unvarying. From Eton he proceeded to King's 
College, Cambridge, where he worked steadily and 
well, obtaining a scholarship, and later on being 
elected to a fellowship. He distinguished himself 
in his studies, becoming Browne's Medallist and 
Hulsean Prizeman. Taking his B.A. degree in 
1802 A.D., he was appointed almost immediately to 
an assistant-mastership at Eton. The following 
year, at the age of twenty-three, he was ordained 

SUMNER. 155 

to the diaconate, and within a few months of his 
ordination he married. In 1815 A.D. Sumner first 
appeared as an author, the work (which went 
through many editions) being entitled, "Apostolic 
Preaching considered in an Examination of St. Paul's 
Epistles." Within twelve months he published 
a "Treatise on the Records of the Creation, and 
on the Moral Attributes of the Creator ; " in which, 
while vindicating the Mosaic account of the creation 
of the world, he accepted the conclusions of geolo- 
gical science as then understood. This literary 
effort obtained one of the Burnett prizes, amounting 
to ,4.00. The book went through seven editions, 
and was a remarkable testimony at the time to 
the authority of scientific research. In 1818 A.D. 
Sumner resigned his mastership at Eton, and 
became Rector of Mapledurham, in Oxfordshire, 
a pretty village lying on the high ground between 
Reading and Henley. Here, in addition to his 
parochial duties, he persevered in his labours as an 
author, producing within the next few years a 
volume on the " Evidences of Christianity derived 
from its Nature and Reception," a volume of " Ser- 
mons on the Christian Faith and Character," and 
other works which greatly enhanced his fame. 

His next piece of preferment was a canonry at 
Durham. But his tenure of this post was of short 
duration, for in 1828 A.D. the Duke of Wellington, 
who was then Prime Minister, recommended him 
for appointment to the bishopric of Chester. Here 
he succeeded Dr. Blomfield, who, after having filled 
the see for four years, was translated to the 
bishopric of London, in which his twenty-eight 


years' episcopate was marked with very great power 
and success. 

Sumner's brother, Charles Richard, had also made 
his mark as a clergyman, having become succes- 
sively king's chaplain, Bishop of Llandaff, and Dean 
of St. Paul's in 1826 A.D. ; and it is an interesting 
coincidence that during the same year in which 
the future Archbishop of Canterbury became Bishop 
of Chester his brother was promoted to the see of 

For twenty years John Bird Sumner laboured in- 
defatigably in his northern diocese. At the time 
of his appointment the see of Chester was regarded 
almost solely as a stepping-stone to higher prefer- 
ment The income was only 1700 a year (while 
that of the neighbouring diocese of Durham was 
twenty times as valuable), and it had been the 
frequent practice of the bishops to hold some rich 
living at the same time. For example, Bishop 
Blomfield was Rector of Bishopsgate as well as 
Bishop of Chester. A few years later, however, 
after the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Com- 
missioners in 1836 A.D., many of the anomalies in 
episcopal and parochial incomes were removed, and 
amongst other changes the stipend of the see of 
Chester was raised to ^45 oo. 

At the time of which we are speaking, shortly 
before the commencement of the present reign, the 
want of life and vigour in the Church of England was 
very marked. She had been greatly weakened by 
the Wesleyan schism (which took place after Wesley's 
death, and in opposition to his wishes), a rupture 
that, in all probability, would never have occurred 

SUMNER. 157 

had the authorities of the Church been capable of 
adapting themselves to the changed circumstances 
of the times. As it was, Methodism (to use the 
term applied at that day to those who adopted and 
sympathized with the stirring and more emotional 
system under which the revival within the Church 
was set on foot) was for a long time regarded with 
suspicion and disfavour by the bishops and the 
majority of the parochial clergy. It was not until 
the breach had become irreparable that the authori- 
ties awoke from their lassitude. 

Ever since that period there has been a real and 
rapidly increasing fervour in all ranks of the Church. 
The enormous increase in the voluntary contributions 
raised for education and for building and restoring 
churches, as well as in the development of lay work, 
have marked the last half-century as one of the 
brightest annals of our ecclesiastical history. And 
yet these results did not immediately follow the 
preaching of Wesley, or perhaps they were de- 
layed and hindered by the schismatic action of his 
followers, for we find that almost throughout the 
first half of the present century the parish churches 
were, speaking generally, in a state of dilapidation 
and collapse. 

As might be expected, the distant dioceses did 
not feel the effect of the enthusiasm so rapidly as 
those which were nearer to London. When Bishop 
Sumner went to Chester in 1828 A.D. he found 
Church life at a very low ebb. The episcopacy of 
Bishop Blomfield had not lasted long enough for 
his influence to have made itself felt in any marked 
degree. Sumner set himself to work in good earnest, 


and was instrumental in building churches, founding 
schools, and arousing, in a variety of ways, a con- 
siderable amount of zeal for the work of the Church 
among the two hundred and fifty-five parishes under 
his episcopal charge. This was due not only to his 
activity, but to the deep personal piety which he 
was universally acknowledged to possess. 

His tenure of his northern see was exactly con- 
temporaneous with the primacy of Archbishop 
Howley, and thus he was brought in contact, as a 
bishop, with many of the important political and 
ecclesiastical events which took place during those 
twenty years. There was the Reform Bill of 1832 
A.D., against which the bishops, in the undoubted 
exercise of their legislative functions, had recorded 
their votes. Whether in so doing they had acted 
wisely or unwisely is not a question into which 
we need here enter. But there is no doubt that 
the popular outcry against them was both loud 
and menacing. To quote Bishop Philpotts' cele- 
brated speech : " The bishops were threatened to 
be driven from their stations because they did not 
vote for ministers, because for once they had thus 
voted upon the greatest question agitated since 
the Revolution, when the bishops had acted in 
defiance of the Crown. Where would their lord- 
ships have been but for the bishops at the Revo- 
lution ? " Again, there was the establishment of 
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, in 1836 A.D., 
were formed into a permanent body for dealing 
with Church revenues. The Archbishops of Can- 
terbury and York, all the diocesan bishops, five 
Cabinet ministers, four judges, three deans, and 

SUMXER. 1 59 

twelve eminent laymen, constitute the Board, which 
meets every week. 

As we saw in the memoir of Archbishop Howley, 
the Tractarian movement commenced in 1833 A.D. 
It was not long before almost every bishop was 
drawn into the controversy. The Bishop of Chester 
and his brother were both regarded as belonging to 
the " Evangelical School," and the anti-High Church 
party looked to them to lead the opposition to what 
was believed to be a dangerous and Romanizing 
attack upon the Church. As a matter of fact, the 
first bishop who definitely condemned the " Tracts " 
was the future primate, John Bird Sumner. In a 
later Charge he described the movement as "the 
work of Satan," and in 1838 A.D. he denounced "the 
undermining of the foundations of our Protestant 
Church by men who dwell within her walls," and 
also protested against the bad faith of those " who 
sit in the Reformers' seat and traduce the Reforma- 
tion." Although his views were uncompromisingly 
those of the " Low Church " party, and the Catholic 
teaching and practice which it was sought to revive 
were not only unknown in the English Church, (save 
to the few who had studied her history and learned 
what her teaching and practice had been in primitive 
and mediaeval times,) but were branded with the 
stigma of an affinity to Romanism, one cannot but 
regret that a prelate of the Church should have 
allowed himself to make use of such language as 
has just been quoted in regard to men who were 
in no degree inferior to himself, either in earnest- 
ness of purpose or in spirituality. 

The Rev. J. Cave-Browne, in his "History of 


Lambeth Palace," thus describes Archbishop Sum- 
ner: "He had in early life been credited with a 
refined scholarship, and had given promise of con- 
siderable theological depth and power, especially in 
the first edition of his 'Apostolic Preaching' (1815). 
His administration of the see of Chester was marked 
with more than ordinary zeal and devotion ; he 
was conspicuous as a preacher rather than as a 
divine ; but a tendency, which grew with his advance 
in years as in dignity, to identify himself with one 
' school ' rather than to be the ' moderator ' of the 
Church, as his predecessor had been, in days when 
the two 'schools of thought' were beginning to 
cause divisions in the Church, led many of those 
whose views he so vehemently opposed to lose sight 
of his real worth and earnest piety, and thus, per- 
haps, to rob him of much of that respect to which 
his office and his holiness of character entitled 

It will be remembered that the Gorham contro- 
versy (see p. 149) was not concluded when Arch- 
bishop Howley died. The judgment of the Privy 
Council, delivered on March 8, 1850 A.D., in which 
the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Sumner, 
acquiesced, reversed the decision of the Dean of 
Arches, and laid down that "the doctrine held by 
Mr. Gorham is not contrary or repugnant to the 
declared doctrine of the Church of England as by 
law established, and that Mr. Gorham ought not, 
by reason of the doctrine held by him, to have been 
refused admission to the vicarage of Brampford 

Archbishop Sumner thereupon, with a view to 

SUMNER. l6l 

making his position clearer in regard to the doc- 
trine he held about Holy Baptism, republished a 
work which he had put forward some thirty years 
before, inserting a new preface, wherein he traced 
the modification that had taken place in his views 
on the subject since the book was originally written. 
This drew from the indefatigable Bishop of Exeter, 
Dr. Philpotts, who had from the first been uncom- 
promising in his opposition to what he maintained 
were the unscriptural and heretical views held by 
Mr. Gorham, a powerful, if somewhat bitter, reply, 
under the title of " A Letter to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury from the Bishop of Exeter." The letter 
thus commences : " I address your Grace under 
circumstances most unusual, and with feelings the 
most painful. In the whole history of the Church of 
England I am not aware that anything of a similar 
kind has ever before occurred that the Primate 
of All England has ever before thrown himself upon 
the judgment of the world as the writer of a con- 
troversial book. Your Grace has been pleased to 
descend from the exalted position in which your 
predecessors were, wisely I think, content to stand. 
You have deemed it your duty to deal publicly 
with 'a subject' of which you say that 'it has 
recently become a matter of distressing controversy,' 
and you will not think it strange if one of the 
parties in that controversy shall animadvert on the 
manner in which you deal with it." The bishop 
proceeds to point out the change which had come 
over the archbishop's views as to baptism, and adds, 
" I cannot adequately express my regret that now, 
in your advanced years, you should materially 



impair and almost contradict the sounder teaching 
of your earlier years." He then makes a charge of 
a far graver character, when he says, "My Lord, 
you were summoned to attend the hearing of the 
late cause before the Judicial Committee of Her 
Majesty's Council, in order that you might assist 
them in dealing with the questions of doctrine in- 
volved in that cause ; and I grieve to think that 
instead of leading you must have misled those whom 
you were to instruct, not only by misstating the 
matters on which you advised, but also by misquoting 
all, or almost all, the authors cited by you in 
confirmation of your statement." In conclusion the 
bishop uses these words : " Meanwhile, I have one 
most painful duty to perform. I have to protest not 
only against the judgment given in the recent cause, 
but also against the regular consequences of that 
judgment. I have to protest against your Grace's 
doing what you will speedily be called to do, either 
in person or by some other exercising your authority. 
I have to protest, and I do hereby solemnly protest 
before the Church of England, before the Holy 
Catholic Church, before Him Who is its Divine 
Head, against your giving mission to exercise cure 
of souls, within my diocese, to a clergyman who 
proclaims himself to hold the opinions which Mr. 
Gorham holds. I protest that any one who gives 
mission to him till he retract is a favourer and 
supporter of those heresies. I protest, in conclu- 
sion, that I cannot, without sin, and, by God's 
grace, I will not, hold communion with him, be he 
who he may, who shall so abuse the high commis- 
sion which he bears." 

SUMNER. 163 

The next subject of public importance in connec- 
tion with the Church, with which Archbishop Sum- 
ner was brought into close and definite relation- 
ship, was the revival of Convocation. Convocation 
is practically the Parliament of the Church. There 
are two Convocations, one of Canterbury and one 
of York. Each consists of two houses, the Upper 
House including the bishops of the province, the 
Lower House being made up of deans, archdeacons, 
and representatives of the clergy called proctors. 
Convocation is dissolved and elected with each dis- 
solution and re-election of Parliament. In order 
to transact important business, the licence of the 
Crown is required. In 1717 A.D. the licence was 
refused, because the clergy declined to submit to 
dictation in matters of faith by the civil power. 
For one hundred and thirty-seven years the Church's 
deliberative assembly was silenced, being allowed 
to meet solely as a matter of form. The earliest 
attempt at a movement in favour of the revival of 
the legislative action of Convocation was made in 
1826 A.D., but no definite steps were taken. The 
question of a renewal of synodical action was dis- 
cussed in 1847 A.D., and in 1850 A.D. a society for 
the revival of Convocation was set on foot. The 
following year an important debate on the subject 
took place in the House of Lords, and when a new 
Convocation was elected at the General Election 
of 1852 A.D., it proceeded, fortified by the best 
legal opinion as to its powers that was obtainable, 
to apply itself at once to the despatch of business, 
one of its first acts being to put forward an ener- 
getic protest aga ; nst the new papal hierarchy (which 


had been established in this country by a papal bull 
in 1850 A.D.), defining it as "that fresh aggression 
of the Bishop of Rome, by which he has arrogated 
to himself the spiritual charge of this nation, thereby 
denying the existence of that branch of the Church 
Catholic which was planted in Britain in the primi- 
tive ages of Christianity, and has been preserved 
by a merciful Providence unto this day." 

As might be anticipated, the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury was at first opposed to the attempt to revive 
the synodical action of Convocation. His sympa- 
thies were not with the general tendency of the 
times in such matters, and he was apprehensive, and 
full of anxiety concerning the possible encourage- 
ment that might thus be given to factions and dis- 
putes between the High Church and Low Church 
parties. But he lived long enough to see that his 
fears were groundless, and before his death he had 
thrown himself heartily into its deliberations. No 
words of praise can be too strong to apply to the 
calm, statesmanlike, and useful discussions which 
have marked the history of Convocation since it re- 
sumed its proper functions. Most of the important 
Church legislation of the last forty years has either 
been originated, or has at all events been improved 
and modified, by Convocation. The northern primate 
was even more backward in taking action than the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. But so strong was the 
popular feeling that the Church was being unfairly 
treated by the suppression of her powers of delibera- 
tion, that it was not long before the Convocation of 
York followed the example of that of the southern 
province, and set herself in full working order. 

SUMNER. 163 

The archbishop soon began, among other things, 
to be drawn into the difficult and complicated ques- 
tions arising out of the Ritual disputes and prosecu- 
tions which were, directly or indirectly, the outcome 
of the Tractarian movement. The first of these 
cases was that of the Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell, 
Vicar of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. Complaint was 
made against certain points of the ritual at his church, 
and in December, 1855 A.D., the vicar was ordered, 
by the Consistory Court of the diocese of London, 
to make specific alterations. The Court of Arches, 
on appeal, confirmed this sentence, whereupon Mr. 
Liddell appealed to her Majesty in Council, with 
the result that he obtained a ruling more favourable 
to himself, several of the points raised being decided 
in accordance with his views. In this judgment, 
which was delivered on March 21, 1857 A.D.,the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, who, with Bishop Tait, had 
been specially summoned to the council, concurred. 

Three years later the primate was involved in a 
far more stormy and heated controversy viz. that 
which raged around the publication of " Essays and 
Reviews." The volume was issued in February, 
1860 A.D., containing seven articles. The following 
are the titles, with the names of the authors : 

1. " The Education of the World." By Frederick 
Temple, D.D., Headmaster of Rugby. 

2. " Bunsen's Biblical Researches." By Rowland 
Williams, D.D. 

3. " On the Study of the Evidences of Christi- 
anity." By Professor Baden Powell. 

4. " The National Church." By the Rev. H. B. 


5. " On the Mosaic Cosmogony." By Mr. C. W. 

6. " Tendencies of Religious Thought in England 
(1688-1750 A.D.)." By the Rev. Mark Pattison. 

7. " On the Interpretation of Scripture." By the 
Rev. Professor Jowett. 

For some months the Essays did not awaken 
any considerable interest, but a vigorous attack 
upon them in the Westminster Review, followed 
later by a strong denunciation of the book by the 
Bishop of Oxford in his autumn Visitation Charge, 
brought it at once into prominent notice, and enor- 
mously increased its circulation. 

Addresses and memorials began to pour in upon 
the archbishop. In February, 1861 A.D., the bishops, 
at a meeting at Lambeth, decided on replying to 
one of these memorials in a letter which, when 
published, might serve as an answer to all. The 
following is the text of the letter written by the 
primate, to which the signatures of the Archbishop 
of York and of twenty-four bishops are appended : 

" I have taken the opportunity of meeting many 
of my episcopal brethren in London to lay your 
address before them. They unanimously agree 
with me in expressing the pain it has given them 
that any clergyman of our Church should have 
published such opinions as those concerning which 
you have addressed me. We cannot understand 
how these opinions can be held consistently with an 
honest subscription to the formularies of our Church, 
with many of the fundamental doctrines of which 
they appear to us essentially at variance. Whether 
the language in which these views are expressed is 

SUMNER. 167 

such as to make the publication an act which could 
be visited in the Ecclesiastical Courts, or to justify 
the synodical condemnation of the book which 
contains them, is still under our gravest considera- 
tion. But our main hope is our reliance on the 
blessing of God in the continued and increasing 
earnestness with which we trust that we and the 
clergy of our several dioceses may be enabled to 
teach and preach that good deposit of sound doc- 
trine which our Church teaches in its fulness, and 
which we pray that she may, by God's grace, ever 
set forth as the uncorrupted gospel of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." 

The question was shortly afterwards debated at 
great length in Convocation. On the motion of 
the Lower House, a committee was appointed to 
examine and report upon the volume in question. 
The decision of the committee was embodied in a 
resolution of the Lower House, that " there are suffi- 
cient grounds for proceeding to a synodical judg- 
ment upon the book entitled ' Essays and Reviews.'" 
The Upper House, in view of the fact that two of 
the Essayists were at that moment being prosecuted 
in the Ecclesiastical Courts, were in favour of ad- 
journing the consideration of the subject. The 
ruling of the Court of Arches, which condemned 
the writers on two of the grounds alleged against 
them, and sentenced them to a year's suspension, 
was not pronounced until three months after the 
archbishop's death. The result of the appeal to 
the Privy Council will be noticed in the memoir 
of Archbishop Longley. 

Meanwhile the clouds were gathering which 


presaged the storm about to burst over the Church 
in the Colenso controversy, and here, too, the 
venerable primate was not permitted to see the 
issue of the struggle. In 1861 A.D., Dr. Colenso, 
Bishop of Natal, published his "Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Romans," which Dr. Gray, Bishop 
of Capetown and Metropolitan, considered to contain 
many heretical statements. When Bishop Gray 
was unable to induce the author to withdraw the 
volume, he wrote to the primate, who thereupon 
brought the matter before the bishops. Their lord- 
ships, while expressing their personal view as to 
the dangerous tendency of the writer's conclusions, 
deferred an official examination of the doctrines 
therein contained pending the arrival in England 
of the two South African prelates. But the excite- 
ment was increased a thousandfold by the issue 
in the following October (a month after Archbishop 
Sumner's death) of Dr. Colenso's " The Pentateuch 
and the Book of Joshua critically examined." 

The archbishop had already, when this contro- 
versy began, passed the age of eighty, and yet his 
vigour and activity were unimpaired. He was better 
fitted for, and perhaps experienced a greater plea- 
sure in, the fulfilment of his pastoral duties than of 
the wider questions of statesmanship in ecclesias- 
tical matters. 

The following words, describing him as he ap- 
peared to one of his own clergy, are worth quoting : 
" His singularly beautiful character has left an image 
never to be effaced in the memory of all who wit- 
nessed it, and that character seemed to have made 
an impression on his later life. Few will fail to 

SUMNER. 169 

remember the energy and devotion with which, up 
to the very last, the archbishop entered upon all 
the duties which the care of the diocese devolved 
upon him. Up to his latest years he carried on his 
progresses in the diocese, every part of which was 
personally known to him ; and when he was urged 
to intermit in some degree this active oversight, 
he was accustomed to say that the time would come 
when he might be unequal to it, but till then he 
was anxious to continue his personal knowledge of 
his 'cure.' Travelling in the simplest manner with 
a single servant, and only distinguished by that 
graceful dignity which was ever conspicuous in him, 
he is remembered everywhere as realizing that ideal 
of the apostolic ministry which he had traced in 
his earliest and most popular work." 

Archbishop Sumner died at Addington Park, 
after a brief illness, on September 6, 1862 A.D., 
aged eighty-two years, and was buried in the village 

He was a ripe scholar, a fluent writer, and a 
not illiberal thinker, although his sympathies were 
closely bound up (as we have seen) with the Evan- 
gelical school in the Church. But his admirers and 
his opponents alike combined in praising the justice 
of his rule, the holiness of his life, and the strength 
of his example. 



CHARLES THOMAS LONGLEY ( 1 862- 1 868 A.D.). 

CHARLES THOMAS LONGLEY was the son of John 
Longley, barrister-at-law and Recorder of Rochester, 
and was born on July 28, 1794 A.D. He was sent 
in due course to Westminster School, and then 
to Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated in 
1815 A.D., taking a first class in classics. He sub- 
sequently became college tutor, censor, and public 
examiner, and was ordained in 1819 A.D. 

His first parochial work was undertaken at Cowley, 
near Oxford, being appointed to this "perpetual 
curacy" (a technical term for an incumbency, of 
which the income is derived, not from tithes, but 
from an annual stipend), in 1823 A.D. About twelve 
months later he became Rector of West Tytherley, 
Hampshire, and remained there till 1829 A.D., when 
he was elected Headmaster of Harrow, receiving 
his D.D. degree in the same year. 

Dr. Longley retained this important position in 
the educational world until 1836 A.D., when, on his 
preferment to the episcopal bench, he was succeeded 
in the headmastership by Christopher Wordsworth, 
afterwards Bishop of Lincoln. 


The first report of the newly inaugurated Eccle- 
siastical Commission recommended the formation 
of two new sees in the province of York, viz. Man- 
chester and Ripon. The latter was to cover the 
West Riding of Yorkshire (with a portion of the 
North Riding), and the grand old minster church 
provided a suitable cathedral, the clerical staff of 
the minster being available as dean and canons. 
The diocese was constituted by the Act 6 & 7 
William IV. c. 79, and Charles Thomas Longley 
was nominated as its first bishop. 

The history of this bishopric is interesting. In 
Saxon times, as early as the year 678 A.D., Arch- 
bishop Theodore, when subdividing the vast diocese 
of Northumbria, appointed Eadhed to the new see 
of Ripon ; but no successor was elected at his death, 
and it was then merged in the diocese of York. The 
minster recalls a long historical retrospect. A church 
at Ripon is mentioned by the Venerable Bede, said 
to have been erected by St. Wilfrid in the seventh 
century. It was originally the church of a monas- 
tery, over which the saint presided, and the crypt was 
known as " St. Wilfrid's Needle." The sacred edifice 
was rebuilt by Archbishop Roger of York, 1 1 54- 
1 1 8 1 A.D., and in the next century Archbishop Gray 
added the two western towers and the facade which 
connects them. In 1319 A.D. it was burnt by the 
Scots ; a hundred years later the lantern tower 
was shattered by a storm ; at the close of the six- 
teenth century the minster was damaged by light- 
ning. It was finally restored by Sir Gilbert Scott 
in 1 86 1 A.D. 

Bishop Longley, after his appointment, at once 


set to work to organize and develop Church work 
in his new diocese, and it is largely owing to his 
vigour and goodness, and to the thorough founda- 
tions which he laid, and the principles of Church- 
manship which he inculcated, that the influence of 
the Church is so strong in the West Riding. Here 
he laboured for twenty years, until, on the death 
of Bishop Maltby, he was promoted to the see of 
Durham. On December 5 he went to Windsor to 
do homage to the queen. Bishop Tait, who had 
also been summoned for the same purpose on his 
appointment as Bishop of London, has the follow- 
ing entry in his diary : " Having been presented 
by Sir George Grey, I kneeled down on both knees 
before the queen, just like a little boy at his 
mother's knee. I placed my joined hands between 
hers, while she stooped her head so as almost to 
bend over mine, and I repeated slowly and solemnly 
the very impressive words of the oath which con- 
stitutes the Act of Homage. Longley, the new 
Bishop of Durham, who had accompanied me, then 
went through the same ceremony. He had not 
escaped so quietly from the ceremonial when he 
was consecrated Bishop of Ripon. His oath was 
then taken to William IV., and no sooner had he 
risen from his knees than the king suddenly ad- 
dressed him in a loud voice, thus : ' Bishop of Ripon, 
I charge you, as you shall answer before Almighty 
God, that you never by word or deed give encour- 
agement to those d d Whigs who would upset 

the Church of England.' " 

After an episcopate of less than four years at 
Durham, Longley was translated, on the death of 


Dr. Musgrave, to the archbishopric of York. He 
had only occupied the northern primacy for two 
years, when, on the death of Archbishop Sumner, 
on September 6, 1862 A.D., he was once again pro- 
moted, and became Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Two important controversies were at that time 
raging within the Church of England, and both 
came almost immediately before the new primate 
in an official way. 

I. The first of these was the prosecution of two 
of the contributors (Dr. Rowland Williams and the 
Rev. H. B. Wilson) to " Essays and Reviews." The 
judgment of the Dean of Arches, which sentenced 
them to a year's suspension, was delivered on 
December 15, 1862 A.D. Both were condemned 
for denying, either directly or by implication, the 
inspiration of Holy Scripture, and Mr. Wilson for 
denying the eternity of future punishment. The 
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to whom 
they appealed, consisted of the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury (Dr. Longley), the Archbishop of York 
(Dr. Thomson), both just appointed, the Bishop of 
London (Dr. Tait), the Lord Chancellor, and three 
lay judges. The case was heard in June, 1863 A.D., 
but judgment was not given till the following Feb- 
ruary. The decision, which reviewed the whole 
matter at considerable length, ended with these 
words : " On the short extracts before us, our judg- 
ment is that the charges are not proved." From 
this ruling the two archbishops dissented, and shortly 
afterwards each published a pastoral letter, ex- 
plaining his position in the matter, and the grounds 
on which he disagreed with his colleagues. 


In March, 1864 A.D., a deputation waited on the 
two archbishops at Lambeth Palace, to present an 
address signed by no less than one hundred and 
thirty-seven thousand lay members of the Church 
of England, expressing their gratitude to the pri- 
mates for the action they had taken in declining 
to acquiesce in the decision of the Privy Council. 
Meantime the full tide of the wrath of both clergy 
and laity was turned upon Bishop Tait, who had 
supported the lay judges. 

The Convocation of Canterbury met in the 
following month, and a somewhat heated debate 
took place in the Upper House, the principal com- 
batants being Bishops Tait and Thirlwall (of St. 
David's) on one side, and Bishop Wilberforce (of 
Oxford) on the other. After a protracted discussion, 
the Bishop of Oxford's motion for the appointment of 
a committee to examine and report on the volume 
entitled " Essays and Reviews " was carried by the 
casting vote of the president f Archbishop Longley). 
At the next session, in June, 1864 A.D., the com- 
mittee reported in favour of a synodical condemna- 
tion of the book, and this was carried through both 
Houses. In a debate which took place a few days 
later in the House of Lords, in which the Lord 
Chancellor contemptuously referred to the condem- 
nation as illegal, but beneath notice, Bishop Tait, 
strongly as he had in Convocation opposed the 
action of his colleagues, now stood fonvard un- 
flinchingly in support of the privileges of that 
body, for which firm stand he received the 
warmest thanks of the archbishop, whose proverbial 
courtesy and kindliness were sorely tried during the 


sometimes violent discussions on this burning 

2. The second controversy, into the vortex of 
which the primate was soon drawn, was that of 
which Dr. Colenso was the central figure. 

At the death of Archbishop Sumner, Bishop 
Colenso's "Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Romans," and the first part of his work " The Penta- 
teuch and the Book of Joshua critically examined " 
had been published. The second part of the latter 
work appeared in January, 1863 A.D. 

The primate held a meeting of the bishops the 
following month, at which their lordships resolved, 
by a large majority, (i) to advise the Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel to " withhold its con- 
fidence from the Bishop of Natal until he has been 
cleared from the charges notoriously incurred by 
him ; " and (2) to inhibit the bishop for the present 
from preaching in their dioceses. 

In consequence of a letter written by Bishop Tait 
to the archbishop, strongly deprecating the second 
of the above resolutions, two further meetings were 
held, and finally an address to Bishop Colenso was 
drawn up, and signed by forty-one prelates, English, 
Irish, and Colonial, the only dissentient being the 
Bishop of St. David's. In this letter the following 
passages occur : 

" We understand you to say that you do not now 
believe that which you voluntarily professed to 
believe, as the indispensable condition of your 
being intrusted with your present office. We under- 
stand you also to say that you have entertained, 
and have not abandoned, the conviction that you 


could not use the Ordination Service, inasmuch as 
in it you ' must require from others a solemn declara- 
tion that they " unfeignedly believe all the Canonical 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ; " which, 
with the evidence now before ' you, ' it is impossible 
wholly to believe in.' And we understand you 
further to intimate that those who think with you 
are precluded from using the Baptismal Service, and 
consequently (as we must infer) other offices of the 
Prayer-book, unless they omit all such passages as 
assume the truth of the Mosaic history. 

" Now, it cannot have escaped you that the incon- 
sistency between the office you hold and the opinions 
you avow is causing great pain and grievous scandal 
to the Church. And we solemnly ask you to con- 
sider once more, with the most serious attention, 
whether you can, without harm to your own con- 
science, retain your position, when you can no 
longer discharge its duties or use the formularies 
to which you have subscribed. . . ." 

Bishop Colenso wrote in reply, declining to resign 
his office. The matter was then debated at con- 
siderable length in Convocation, but no definite 
action was taken, pending the result of the trial which 
was in contemplation. Bishop Gray, the Metro- 
politan of Cape Town, delivered his judgment on 
December 16, 1863 A.D., in which he deposed the 
Bishop of Natal from his office, and inhibited him 
from exercising his functions within the province. 
When a protest was raised against the legality of 
these proceedings, Bishop Gray replied, " I can- 
not recognize any appeal, except to his Grace the 
Archbishop of Canterbury." Unfortunately the 


archbishop, by joining with the other bishops in 
inhibiting Dr. Colenso from officiating in his diocese, 
had disqualified himself from hearing the appeal by 
practically prejudging the case. 

Bishop Colenso appealed to the Queen in Council, 
and the Lord Chancellor delivered judgment in his 
favour on March 20, 1865 A.D., declaring that "the 
proceedings taken by the Bishop of Cape Town, 
and the sentence pronounced by him against the 
Bishop of Natal, are null and void in law." The 
Court gave its ruling solely on the question of the 
legality of the deposition, not on the orthodoxy or 
otherwise of the writings. 

The controversy continued to rage for some time 
longer, but it assumed a somewhat different phase. 
Bishop Gray, having satisfied himself in regard to 
his deposition of his heretical suffragan, was now 
anxious to press forward the election and consecra- 
tion of a new bishop for the diocese of Natal. The 
Archbishop of Canterbury, while recommending 
caution and thorough inquiry into all the difficul- 
ties, was in favour of this step. Further action in 
the matter was postponed, pending the approaching 
gathering of the first "Lambeth Conference." This 
synod, to which all the bishops of the Anglican 
Communion were invited, and from whose primary 
meeting under the presidency of Archbishop Longley 
such benefit has accrued to the Church, is the great 
event with which the thought of his primacy is 

The original suggestion for such an assembly 
was made as early as September, 1865 A.D., by 
the provincial synod of the Canadian Church, in 



which a motion was carried urging upon the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury and the Convocation of his 
province that means should be adopted "by which 
the members of our Anglican Communion in all 
quarters of the world should have a share in the 
deliberations for her welfare, and be permitted to 
have a representation in one general council of her 
members gathered from every land." 

The idea was fully debated in Convocation during 
the following May, the result of the discussions 
being that the Archbishop of Canterbury was re- 
quested to issue an invitation to all the bishops 
in communion with the Church of England to 
assemble "for the purpose of Christian sympathy 
and mutual counsel on matters affecting the welfare 
of the Church at home and abroad." 

Accordingly, on February 22, 1867 A.D., the 
archbishop wrote to all the bishops of the Anglican 
Communion English, Scotch, Irish, Colonial, Mis- 
sionary, and American then one hundred and forty- 
four in number, inviting them to come together at 
Lambeth Palace on September 24 of the same year, 
and the three following days. His Grace was careful 
to define the limits within which the deliberations 
of the Conference would be restricted. He wrote, 
" Such a meeting would not be competent to make 
declarations or lay down definitions on points of 
doctrine. But united worship and common counsels 
would greatly tend to maintain practically the unity 
of the faith, whilst they would bind us in straighter 
bonds of peace and brotherly charity." 

It was feared by several of the bishops at home 
that such a Conference must almost of necessity 


increase the confusion already existing in ecclesi- 
astical matters, in consequence of the Colenso con- 
troversy and other difficulties, and they therefore 
determined to absent themselves from the meetings. 
Among these were the Archbishop of York, and the 
Bishops of Durham, Carlisle, Ripon, Peterborough, 
and Manchester. Bishop Thirlwall, of St. David's, at 
last consented to attend on the understanding, given 
him privately by the primate, that the question 
of Bishop Colenso's position should not be intro- 
duced or debated. 

The Conference met on Tuesday, September 24, 
1867 A.D., with a celebration of the Holy Commu- 
nion in Lambeth Chapel, at which the sermon was 
preached by Dr. Whitehouse, Bishop of Illinois. 
The meetings were held in the historic " Guard- 
room " of the palace, in which hang the portraits 
of the Archbishops of Canterbury in unbroken 
succession from Warham, who held the primacy 
from 1503 to 1533 A.D., to the present day. 

In his opening address, Archbishop Longley again 
laid down, with considerable care, the limits of dis- 
cussion. " It has never been contemplated," he said, 
"that we should assume the functions of a general 
synod of all the Churches in full communion with 
the Church of England, and take upon ourselves 
to enact canons that should be binding upon those 
here represented. We merely propose to discuss 
matters of practical interest, and pronounce what 
we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve 
as safe guides to future action." 

It was on the third day that the "burning ques- 
tion " of Bishop Colenso and his opponents became 


the subject of a heated debate. The introduction 
of a resolution by Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont 
(presiding bishop of the American Church), con- 
demning Dr. Colenso as excommunicated, was ruled 
out of order by the archbishop. The Bishop of St. 
David's reminded the primate of the understanding 
that had been previously arrived at, adding, "I 
throw myself on your Grace's honour and good faith." 
After a long and animated debate, the archbishop 
ended the matter by declaring that he did not think 
it competent to introduce the Natal question except 
in the guarded way of proposing that a committee be 
appointed to report on the best mode of delivering 
the Church from the present scandal. A resolution 
to this effect was carried by forty-nine votes to ten. 
The tone of the Conference, and the harmony which 
had existed, were somewhat marred by the proposal, 
brought forward at the close of the proceedings by 
the Bishop of Cape Town, that the meeting should 
assent to a hypothetical resolution passed by the 
Convocation of Canterbury in June, 1866 A.D., in 
regard to the appointment of a new Bishop of 

The archbishop, whose courteous bearing and 
unruffled temper contributed so much to the success 
of the Conference, was unable to restrain the excite- 
ment that prevailed, and was powerless to prevent, 
as he undoubtedly desired to do, a decision being 
arrived at which to a great extent stultified his pre- 
vious ruling. 

The closing service was held on Saturday, Sep- 
tember 28, in Lambeth Parish Church, the sermon 
being preached by Bishop Fulford of Montreal. 


The various committees appointed by the synod 
continued their labours through the autumn, and on 
December 10, a final meeting of the bishops who 
were still in England was held at Lambeth tc 
receive the reports. 

An interesting sequel to the Conference took place 
a few years later, when a massive alms-basin was 
presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury (no 
longer Dr. Longley, but his successor, Dr. Tait), as 
a memorial gift from the bishops of the American 
Church. The design is a very beautiful one. In 
the centre is the hemisphere, showing the Atlantic 
Ocean, with the Old World on the east of it, and the 
New World on the west. A scroll on the ocean 
bears the inscription, " Orbis veteri novus, occidens 
orienti, filia matri " (" The new world to the old, 
the west to the east, the daughter to the mother "). 
Various symbolic designs are traceable both in the 
dish itself and round the rim. The presentation 
of this magnificent offering was made on July 2, 
1872 A.D. (the hundred and seventy-first anniversary 
of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel), in 
St. Paul's Cathedral. The Bishop of Lichfield (Dr. 
Selwyn, formerly Bishop of New Zealand) had been 
commissioned by the American prelates to make the 
presentation, which he did after reading an address 
to the archbishops and bishops at home. 

The ritual difficulties, which had to some extent 
been forgotten, or at least withdrawn from popular 
discussion, by the more exciting and even more 
bitter controversies regarding the publication of 
" Essays and Reviews," and the writings of Bishop 
Colenso, began, in 1866 A.D., to claim once more 


the general attention of the Church. The " English 
Church Union" had been founded, in 1859 A.D., to 
defend the doctrine, discipline, and ritual of the 
Church, and to afford counsel and protection to all 
who were prosecuted on such grounds. This society 
was met by the organizing, in 1865 A.D., of the 
" Church Association," which was designed " to 
counteract the efforts now being made to pervert 
the teaching of the Church of England on essential 
points of the Christian faith, or assimilate her services 
to those of the Church of Rome." 

In February, 1866 A.D., the archbishop received 
an important deputation on the subject, and for 
the next six months the matter was fully debated 
in Convocation, the final decision arrived at being 
"that no alteration from the long-sanctioned and 
usual ritual ought to be made in our Churches until 
the sanction of the bishop of the diocese has been 
obtained thereto." This was the first occasion, since 
its revival in 1852 A.D., on which the provincial 
synod of Canterbury came to a deliberate resolution 
upon the ritual controversies which had so long 
been agitating the Church. 

Lord Shaftesbury, whose sympathies were always 
with the extreme Low Church party, proceeded, on 
May 14, 1867 A.D., to introduce into the House of 
Lords his " Clerical Vestments Bill," in spite of the 
urgent requests of Archbishop Longley, Bishop 
Tait, and others, that he would postpone his action 
for a time until the first report of the Royal Com- 
mission (which had been promised by the Govern- 
ment) should be published. The primate, "while 
expressing his full agreement with the greater part 


of the noble earl's powerful address, and his sym- 
pathy with the indignation he had shown, urged 
the advantage of waiting for the action of the Royal 
Commission about to be appointed, and moved the 
postponement of the second reading." The bill 
was rejected by sixty-one votes to forty-six. 

The commissioners, of whom the archbishop was 
chairman, began their sittings on June 17, and 
issued their first report on August 19, which was 
to the effect that the eucharistic vestments are not 
regarded as essential, and that it is expedient to 
restrain all innovations in this direction. For a 
few months the Lambeth Conference diverted the 
attention of Churchmen from the ritual question. 
But early in 1868 A.D. the discussions in Convocation 
were revived, although no decision was arrived at 
pending the appearance of the second report of the 

Archbishop Longley, who was called to his rest 
before the disestablishment and disendowment of 
the Irish Church became an accomplished fact, lived 
long enough to see the commencement of the attack, 
and to use that influence which he wielded with no 
slight effect (but in this instance without avail) in 
the direction of saving the Church in Ireland from 
spoliation. On March 23, 1868 A.D., Mr. Gladstone 
proposed his resolutions on the subject. He carried 
the first division on them by a majority of sixty 
against the Government, whereupon Mr. Disraeli an- 
nounced, on May 4, that he had advised he*" Majesty 
to dissolve Parliament in the coming autumn, so 
that the decision of the country might be taken on 
the Irish Church question. Public meetings on both 


sides were at once organized in London and in 
different parts of the country. A gigantic gathering 
was held at St. James's Hall on May 6, under the 
presidency of the archbishop, who was supported 
on the platform by twenty-five bishops (eleven of 
whom held English sees) and forty-nine peers. His 
Grace's address at this meeting, and his speech the 
following month in the three days' debate on the 
" Suspensory Bill " in the House of Lords, were 
among his last public utterances. 

The venerable archbishop, who was ailing through- 
out the autumn, died of bronchitis at Addington 
Park on October 27, 1868 A.D., in the seventy-fifth 
year of his age. 

The following brief rhumt of the archbishop's 
life, by one who knew and loved him well, is worth 
recording : " Charles Thomas Longley, who had 
been the first bishop of the newly formed see of 
Ripon, which he held for twenty years, passed in 
six years through those of Durham and York to 
that of Canterbury. During his short archiepisco- 
pate of barely six years he evinced a talent for 
administration, of which he had already given 
proofs in the lesser sphere of the Ripon diocese, 
combined with a benignity of disposition which won 
for him the love and honour of every ' school ' and 
every grade in the English Church. The one event 
for which his occupancy of the Metropolitical See 
will be best remembered was the gathering of the 
first ' Pan-Anglican Conference of Bishops,' an act 
which, while it marks an epoch in the history of the 
English Church, is a striking memorial of the pro- 
found judgment and true Catholicity of mind for 


I8 5 

which Archbishop Longley was conspicuous through 
life. By this act he especially showed how deeply 
he realized and had the courage to give visible 
expression to that great spiritual headship of the 
Anglican Communion which centred in the Metro- 
political Chair of Canterbury." 

The archbishop was a scholar of no mean order, 
and a good administrator. While others of more 
brilliant gifts to some extent eclipsed his fame in 
public matters, yet the influence of his piety and 
devotion, and of his unfailing gentleness and chival- 
rous courtesy, was widely felt, and left its mark 
upon his generation. 




THE first Scotchman who ever attained to the 
primacy of the English Church was Archibald 
Campbell Tait. He was the youngest son of a 
family of nine, and was born at Harviestoun, in 
Clackmannanshire, on December 22, 1811 A.D. 
His mother died when he was only two years old. 
Shortly afterwards pecuniary trouble fell upon his 
father, and his childhood was spent in circumstances 
of privation. At the age of ten he was sent to the 
High School at Edinburgh, whence in due course 
he was removed to the newly founded Edinburgh 

After three years spent at Glasgow University, 
young Tait went up to Balliol, Oxford, in October, 
1830 A.D. He had a distinguished career, graduating 
in 1833 A.D., and in the following year was elected 
to a Balliol Fellowship. He was ordained in 
1836 A.D., and for the next five years he acted as 
curate in charge of a small country parish nearly 
six miles from Oxford, discharging his pastoral 
duties in addition to his college work as tutor and 


At this time the Tractarian movement was in full 
swing. The celebrated Tract 90, written by Dr. 
Newman on the interpretation of the Thirty-nine 
Articles, was issued on February 27, 1841 A.D. A 
few days later a strong protest, signed by four 
tutors of Balliol, was published. One of the four 
was Archibald Tait, among whose papers was found 
the original draft, identical with the final document 
except as regards a few verbal differences. Space 
does not allow of a description of the various phases 
of the controversy which raged round this question 
for several years. But the discontinuance of the 
series of tracts was largely due to the action of 
Tait and his three co-signatories. 

In July, 1842 A.D., he was elected headmaster 
of Rugby, in succession to Dr. Arnold, and a year 
later married Catherine, youngest daughter of Arch- 
deacon Spooner. In his school work, as in his 
University career, he devoted himself heart and 
soul to the faithful discharge of the duties devolv- 
ing upon him, but his wonderful zeal and energy 
gradually overtaxed his strength. In February, 

1848 A.D., he was stricken down with rheumatic 
fever, and within a month the doctors had given 
up all hope. He gradually recovered, but it was 
evident that his health had been greatly shaken, 
and that he would not for a long time, if ever, be 
equal to a renewal of the tremendous strain of the 
work done before his illness. Accordingly when, in 

1849 A.D., he was offered the deanery of Carlisle, 
his friends urged him to accept the post. 

It is not too much to say that up to that time 
the universal conception of the decanal office had 


been one of leisurely and dignified retirement, if 
not of masterly inactivity. But Tait's six years' 
tenure of his deanery showed that he, at least, was 
determined to put forth his full powers in order 
that he might show himself to be a living force, 
and not a mere figure-head. A few months after 
his appointment he was invited to serve on the royal 
commission " for enquiring into the state, discipline, 
studies, and revenues of the University of Oxford, 
and of all and singular the Colleges in the said 
University." Notwithstanding the vehement oppo- 
sition which was offered by many of the heads of 
houses and other academical authorities, the task 
was persevered in, and a most elaborate and able 
report was issued, the general tenor of the recom- 
mendations being that the doors of the University 
should be thrown more widely open in various 

The two chief items of Dean Tait's reforming work 
at Carlisle were the reorganization of the capitular 
revenues, and the restoration of the cathedral. 

It was in March and April, 1856 A.D., that the 
terrible sorrow overwhelmed the occupants of the 
deanery of Carlisle, when five daughters were carried 
off by scarlet fever in less than a month, leaving 
the bereaved parents with two children, a boy aged 
six, and a baby six weeks old. 

A few months later Dean Tait was nominated 
to the bishopric of London to succeed Bishop Blom- 
field, who had resigned the see. It is an interesting 
fact that only once during the previous two hundred 
years had any man, not already in episcopal orders, 
been appointed to the diocese of the metropolis. 

. TAIT. 189 

Dr. Tait was consecrated on November 23, 1856 
A.D., in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, together with 
Dr. Cotterill (Bishop of Grahamstown, and afterwards 
Bishop of Edinburgh) ; and he immediately plunged 
into the duties of his new sphere of work. 

From the very beginning of his career as Bishop of 
London, he was drawn into the ritual controversies, 
which for so many years stirred and almost shook 
to its foundations the Church of England. He sat 
as an assessor at the Privy Council to hear the 
appeal of the Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell, Vicar 
of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, against the decision of 
the Consistory Court of London, and took a promi- 
nent part in drawing up the judgment, which was the 
first of its kind that had been given on the subject 
of the ornaments of the Church. In his Primary 
Charge to the diocese, delivered on November 17, 
1858 A.D., he dealt at length with the subject of 
auricular confession, expressing his strong opinion 
that the inculcation of this as an habitual practice 
is contrary to the doctrine and custom of the 
Church of England. The Charge occupied five hours 
in delivery, and for that space of time he held his 
hearers, seated under the dome of St. Paul's Cathe- 
dral, spell-bound alike by the charm of his manner, 
and the importance and interest of his utterances. 
Whether in consequence of this charge, or for other 
reasons, the "Confession controversy" passed out 
of sight for many years, until it was revived during 
his primacy in the year 1873 A.D. 

For several years the bishop's tact and skill 
were severely taxed in dealing with the riots at 
St. George's-in-the-East, which were fomented and 


encouraged by the extreme "Protestant" party, 
and swelled to abnormal proportions by the large 
element of roughs and criminals abounding in that 

On the death of Archbishop Sumner in 1862 
A.D., and the translation of Dr. Longley from the 
northern primacy to Canterbury, Bishop Tait was 
offered the archbishopric of York. After careful 
consideration, and with the advice of friends, he 
declined the post on the ground that his duty 
seemed to lie in the direction of continuing the 
work of which, during his six years' episcopate, he 
had so thoroughly mastered the details. 

The " Essays and Reviews " controversy has been 
touched upon in the two preceding memoirs. The 
position of Bishop Tait, whose friendship with two 
of the Essayists (Dr. Temple and Professor Jowett) 
had long been of an intimate character, was neces- 
sarily a very difficult one. From the first he urged 
that the writers should publicly avow their responsi- 
bility only for their own productions, and not for the 
volume as a whole. While maintaining, in Convoca- 
tion and in his correspondence, the belief that the 
book was likely to do great and grievous harm, he 
strongly dissented from the proposal, made after the 
publication of an episcopal letter, that the Essays 
should be examined by a committee of the Lower 
House of Convocation with a view to ascertaining if 
there were sufficient grounds for a "synodical judg- 
ment " to be passed upon them. He was a member 
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before 
whom the appeal of two of the Essayists (Dr. 
Rowland Williams and the Rev. H. B. Wilson), 


against the condemnation of the Dean of Arches, 
came, and he joined with the lay judges, in oppo- 
sition to the two archbishops, in the final judg- 
ment which stated that "the charges were not 
proved." Bearing in mind the fever-heat of popular 
excitement at the time, and the feeling, which 
animated a vast number of clergy and laity alike, 
that the tendency of the volume in question was 
to undermine the foundations of the Christion faith, 
it is not surprising that the full tide of wrathful de- 
nunciation was turned upon the Bishop of London. 
Whatever opinion may be held as to the wisdom 
or the reverse of Bishop Tait's action in the matter, 
no one will deny that he took a courageous, 
because a most unpopular, line in accordance with 
his honest convictions. 

In the Colenso controversy also, Dr. Tait, though 
he had no sympathy with the attack upon Holy 
Scripture which the Bishop of Natal so gratuitously 
made in his published works, felt it his duty to 
oppose the almost unanimous course adopted by 
his episcopal brethren in inhibiting Dr. Colenso 
from officiating in their dioceses, and to withstand 
the strong efforts made by Bishop Wilberforce to 
secure a formal pronouncement in Convocation that 
the Church of England was not in communion 
with Dr. Colenso. His attitude brought him into 
a position of acute conflict with the fiery Metro- 
politan of Capetown, but his whole line of policy 
throughout the controversy, whether the light of after 
events leads us to believe that he took the wisest 
course or the reverse, was carefully thought out and 
planned, and was shaped not merely with reference 


to the immediate subject in dispute, but rather to 
the wider question of the relation of the Colonial 
Churches to the Church at home. 

During his London episcopate, Bishop Tait laid 
himself out, especially in the earlier years of his 
metropolitan work, to encourage, and even person- 
ally to set on foot, a series of evangelistic religious 
gatherings. He preached at open-air services in 
almost every part of London ; he addressed ship- 
loads of emigrants at the docks, and omnibus-drivers 
in their great yard at Islington ; he preached to the 
costermongers in Covent Garden market ; to railway 
porters from the platform of a locomotive ; to a 
colony of gipsies on the common of Shepherd's Bush. 
He managed, after considerable effort and delay, to 
prevail upon the authorities of Westminster Abbey 
and St. Paul's Cathedral to hold Sunday evening 
services, and himself preached on several occasions. 

In his Charge to the clergy of the diocese, de- 
livered in 1862 A.D., Bishop Tait described, with 
many careful statistics, the spiritual destitution of a 
large number of parishes and districts. He pointed 
out that three parishes had a population of over 
thirty thousand, and eleven had upwards of twenty 
thousand, while there was only one church in each. 
With the rapid increase of population, amounting to 
something like forty thousand annually in London 
alone, the good work done in the matter of church- 
building (sixty-six permanent, and twenty-one tem- 
porary churches had been erected) between the years 
1851 and 1861 A.D., had not been able, grand as 
the effort was, to do more than keep pace with the 
needs of the time. 

TAIT. 193 

Feeling strongly the necessity of endeavouring 
to cope with the arrears of Church work, and en- 
couraged by the reception accorded to his Visita- 
tion Charge, the bishop summoned an influential 
meeting of the laity, and started the "Bishop of 
London's Fund," for the strengthening and enlarging 
of the diocesan work in all its forms. So great was 
the enthusiasm aroused, that the first subscription 
list amounted to 60,000, and in March, 1864 A.D., 
nine months after the appeal was first issued, the 
total had exceeded 100,000, and 92,000 more 
had been promised. 

When the cholera epidemic broke out in July, 
1866 A.D., the Bishop of London was on the point 
of leaving home for a much-needed rest. But he 
at once changed his plans, and for many weeks 
remained, lovingly aided by Mrs. Tait, to minister, 
both temporarily and spiritually, to the sick and 
dying. As a sequel to their labours, they estab- 
lished an orphanage at Fulham, which was after- 
wards moved to St. Peter's, Thanet, where it still 
exists. The strain, however, had been too great. 
In September the bishop was taken seriously ill, 
and for a long time his life hung in the balance. 
He was able by the following February to resume 
his active work, although the doctors were con- 
stantly urging a relaxation of the severe tension 
to which he subjected himself by his unceasing 

In the spring of 1868 A.D., he purchased the 
small estate of Stonehouse, near Broadstairs, as a 
quiet and bracing retreat, where he could from time 
to time recuperate his health by a short holiday. 



He little thought that before the end of the year 
he would preside over the see in which this new 
home was situated. 

: Archbishop Longley died on October 27, 1868 
A.D., and about three weeks later Mr. Disraeli, 
the then Prime Minister, offered the primacy to 
Bishop Tait, which he accepted without delay. In 
less than a fortnight the General Election had taken 
place, giving a majority of over a hundred to the 
Opposition, and Mr. Gladstone became the new 
Premier, pledged to bring forward, as his chief 
measure, the disestablishment and disendowment 
of the Irish Church. 

It can readily be understood how heavy was the 
weight of responsibility laid upon the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, who had only just been raised to 
this high position, to guide the policy of the Church 
on the question, and to safeguard the highest 
religious interests of the nation. In opposing the 
Suspensory Bill of the previous year, Dr. Tait, who 
was then Bishop of London, had laid stress on the 
duty of resisting such a proposal until the feeling 
of the electorate had been ascertained. The verdict 
of the nation having now been given with no un- 
certain voice, the archbishop, contrary to the wishes 
of a vast number of Churchmen, determined to 
accept the decision, believing that honesty and 
consistency required him to do so, and turned his 
attention to questions of detail, endeavouring to 
obtain such terms for the Irish Church as would 
minimize the injustice, and mitigate the severity, 
of the scheme. 

The Bill was introduced by Mr. Gladstone in the 

TAIT. 195 

House of Commons on March I, 1869 A.D. ; three 
weeks later the second reading was carried by a 
majority of 1 18 ; and on May 31 it was read a third 
time. When it came up to the House of Lords, 
the Conservative leaders, with a few exceptions, 
were in favour of summarily rejecting it. The arch- 
bishop, however, took a different line. He argued 
that, in view of the recent judgment of the people, 
the Bill would be certain to be carried through 
ultimately, and it would be the wisest course to 
concentrate all efforts on passing important amend- 
ments, after allowing the second reading to be taken. 
It was largely due to his influence that this plan was 
adopted. He was in constant communication with 
the queen, who showed the keenest interest, both in 
making the best possible terms for the Irish Church, 
and at the same time in preventing a collision 
between the two Houses of Parliament. His per- 
sonal influence with Mr. Gladstone on the one hand, 
and with the leaders of the Opposition on the other, 
was exerted, successfully, to bring about a compro- 
mise in regard to the amendments proposed, which 
could be honourably accepted by both contending 
parties. When the controversy was over, he re- 
ceived warm expressions of thanks from the queen, 
Mr. Gladstone, and the Irish bishops. Her Majesty 
assured him of her recognition of his "combined 
firmness and moderation throughout this unhappy 
crisis, from the second reading to the end." Arch- 
bishop Trench, of Dublin, as representing the Irish 
prelates, wrote : " All Irish Churchmen, if they are 
not vulgarly thankless, will keep a most grateful 
memory of all you did, and sought to do, in aid of 


our Establishment while it was passing through the 
crisis of its fate, and I, with those others who were 
the immediate witnesses of your efforts, will keep 
the most grateful record of them all." 

After the terrible strain, both of responsibility 
and work, in connection with this Parliamentary 
struggle, the archbishop spent the late summer in 
a heavy round of diocesan work. At length, on 
November 18, 1869 A.D., the overtaxed strength 
gave way, and he had a convulsive seizure, recurring 
a few hours later, which left him partially paralyzed 
on the left side. For many weeks his life was 
despaired of, and it was not till the following 
spring that he was able to resume, even tentatively, 
his active work. Fearing that he might never 
again be competent to discharge his heavy duties, 
he desired to resign the primacy, but the queen 
would not allow him to do this. An alternative 
plan was finally adopted, by which, under an un- 
repealed Act of Henry VIII. (26 Henry VIII. 
cap. 15), he could obtain the assistance of a suf- 
fragan bishop, who would relieve him of the greater 
part of the diocesan work, and thus leave him 
larger opportunities of dealing with the ever- 
growing burden of ecclesiastical policy and ad- 
ministration, augmented as it was by the rapidly 
widening Colonial Church. His choice of suffragan 
fell on an old Rugby pupil, who had in later years 
been his domestic chaplain and intimate friend, 
Archdeacon Edward Parry. Dr. Parry was conse- 
crated Bishop of Dover in Lambeth Palace Chapel 
on March 25, 1870 A.D., and during his twenty 
years' episcopate he won, in a marked degree, the 

TAIT. 197 

affection and esteem of both clergy and laity 
throughout the diocese of Canterbury. 

The storm of opposition roused against the 
nomination of Dr. Temple to the see of Exeter 
reached its height during the archbishop's illness, 
although the objections to the appointment had 
begun to appear before his seizure. The ground 
of the complaint was that Dr. Temple had been 
one of the writers of " Essays and Reviews." Every 
effort was made, by memorials, by public meetings, 
at the election by the chapter, and at the confir- 
mation in Bow Church, to prevent Dr. Temple 
from being raised to the home episcopate. He 
was, however, consecrated on December 21, 1869 
A.D., in Westminster Abbey. Bishop Temple 
laboured indefatigably in his western diocese for 
nearly sixteen years, and when, in 1885 A.D., he 
was translated to the see of London, the appoint- 
ment was hailed with acclamation by the almost 
unanimous voice of the Church of England. 

We come now to the consideration of a measure 
which has called forth a vast amount of contro- 
versy, and in regard to which the position of Arch- 
bishop Tait has been very imperfectly understood. 
I refer to the Public Worship Regulation Act of 
1874 A.D. 

For many years Lord Shaftesbury had been exert- 
ing himself to alter the constitution and working 
of the ecclesiastical courts, but his suggestions had 
met with but feeble support, and the authorities 
of the Church, in opposing his, as they deemed 
them, unwise and often mischievous proposals, had 
pledged themselves to bring in a measure of their 


own. The bishops met in January, 1874 A.D., to 
discuss the question, and the two archbishops 
drafted a Bill, which provided that in every diocese 
there should be a council, presided over by the 
bishop, consisting of three incumbents and five lay 
Churchmen, elected for five years, and three ex- 
officio members. Any complaint of ritual irregu- 
larity was to be referred by the bishop to this 
council, which was to advise him, after hearing 
evidence, as to whether further proceedings should 
be taken or not. If the former, the bishop was to 
issue such order as he deemed necessary, and this 
was to have the force of law unless annulled by the 
archbishop on appeal. There was to be no appeal 
from the archbishop's decision. 

Matters, however, were complicated by an un- 
expected dissolution of Parliament, the defeat of 
the Liberals at the polls, and the return of the 
Conservative party with a large majority. Arch- 
bishop Tait at once endeavoured to enlist the 
support of the leading members of the new Govern- 
ment, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Cairns, and Lord Salisbury. 
But before the Bill could be submitted either to 
Convocation or to Parliament, the press published 
an outline of its provisions, and the High Church 
party, led by Dr. Pusey, vehemently attacked its 
leading details, especially the diocesan council. At 
length, on April 20, the archbishop introduced the 
Bill in the House of Lords. He reluctantly aban- 
doned his proposed council, and fell back on the 
three assessors (the dean, archdeacon, and a barrister 
of seven years' standing) provided by the Church 
Discipline Act of 1840 A.D. The interval between 

TAIT. 199 

the first and second reading proved, by the criti- 
cisms which poured in, that the archbishop could 
no longer hope for the assistance or support of 
the High Church party in carrying the legislation 
that the episcopal bench were unanimous in pro- 
moting. When the Bill reached committee, Lord 
Shaftesbury proposed a series of amendments which, 
if adopted, must alter the whole character of the 
measure. The consequence was that the arch- 
bishops were placed in the following difficulty. 
Either they must modify their own wishes as the 
price of securing the assistance of Lord Shaftesbury 
and his friends in passing some legislation, or they 
must abandon the Bill altogether. In the light of 
after events, it is held by many Churchmen that 
the latter course would have been the wisest. But, 
surrounded as the bishops were with a ceaseless 
chorus of demands for some effort to be made to 
redress existing grievances, they chose the former 
alternative. The principal alteration was the 
transference to a single lay judge, to be appointed 
by the two archbishops, of the office and authority 
of the two existing provincial judges, and the 
provision that all representations under the Act 
should be heard by this official without the inter- 
vention either of diocesan courts, or of the pre- 
liminary Commission of Inquiry suggested by the 
bishops. The most important point of all was the 
retention, after a severe struggle, of the episcopal 
veto, which has done much to render comparatively 
harmless what might otherwise have proved to be 
a measure disastrous to the Church. 

The death of the archbishop's only son, in May, 


1878 A.D., followed by that of Mrs. Tait, his beloved 
and faithful helpmeet and wisest of counsellors, six 
months later, did much to age him, and to weaken 
his already enfeebled health. 

Perhaps the greatest strain which the primate had 
to bear during his long episcopate was the task 
of entering with all his powers into the work of the 
Second Lambeth Conference, six weeks after the 
loss of his son. The details of that great gathering 
are in many respects similar to those of the first 
conference held under Archbishop Longley. The 
month of July was given up to the sessions, the 
second and third weeks being occupied with the 
work of committees. One hundred and seventy- 
three bishops (as against one hundred and forty- 
four in 1867 A.D.) were invited, and one hundred 
(as against seventy-six) were present. 

In the Burials controversy, from 1877 to 1881 
A.D., Archbishop Tait was once more placed in 
a position in which the conscientious discharge of 
his duty brought him into strong, and to a certain 
extent bitter, opposition to the views of a large 
body of the clergy. Whatever opinion may be 
held as to the line he took, it must be acknowledged 
that the gloomy foreboding so freely uttered, as 
to the results of the Burial Act of 1881 A.D., have 
not been fulfilled. The Act has remained practi- 
cally a dead letter. 

It was to the archbishop's ceaseless efforts, and 
powerful personal influence, that the Ecclesiastical 
Courts Commission was appointed, in May,i88i A.D., 
with himself as chairman, and, although the report 


was not issued until after his death, the general 
tenor was decided upon while he was still pre- 
siding over its deliberations. 

The principal anxiety of the last few months of 
his life was to take some steps towards healing the 
ritual divisions by which the Church was being- 
rent, and he was instrumental in allaying much of 
the strife and heat of contending parties. 

On Advent Sunday, 1882 A.D., after an illness of 
some three months, Archbishop Taft breathed his 
last. He was buried in Addington churchyard, in 
accordance with his own wish, although the offer 
of a public funeral in Westminster Abbey was 

The above brief sketch of the part he played in 
the many difficult crises which arose during his 
episcopacy will give a fair idea of his character and 
powers. He is undoubtedly one of the occupants of 
the see of Canterbury who has earned a high place 
as in every sense of the word a great man. The 
Duke of Albany offered the following tribute to his 
memory : " Archbishop Tait was a high-minded 
dignitary, an indefatigable worker, a good man ; 
and English history, which records so many heroes 
of diity, can scarcely point to a purer instance of 
the single-mindedness which forgets self in great 
public objects, or of the conscientiousness which 
makes a man refuse, under any pressure of tempta- 
tion or weariness, to do less than his utmost, or to 
be less than his best." A leading statesman, an old 
pupil of the archbishop's at Rugby, thus described 
him : " It is not only the Church, it is the State, 


which may be grateful to the archbishop who con- 
ducts the work of his office as Dr. Tait performed 
his work. I think it may be truly said that he had 
energy without passion, earnestness without bigotry, 
and authority without imperiousness." 



With a few exceptions, it may be considered that the date of the death of an 
archbishop is contemporary with the date of the accession of his successor. 

Year Ace. 

Names of Archbishops. of or 
Cons. Trans. 

Year Ace. 

Names of Archbishops. of or 
Cons. Trans. 





i Augustine 



2 Laurentius 

.. 604 

oy / 
.. 604 

34 Anselm 



3 jMcllitus 



4 Justus 

. 604 

.. 624 

36 William de Corbeuil ... 



5 Honorius 

. 627 

.. 627 

37 Theobald 



6 Deusdedit 

.. 655 


38 Thomas a Becket 


. 162 

7 Theodore 

. 668 

.. 668 

39 Richard 



8 Brihtwald 

60 1 

6Q 7 



9 Tatwin 


- 731 

w yo 


41 Hubert Fitzwalter 



10 Nothelm 



42 Stephen Langton 

1207 .. 

. 1207 

ii Cuthbert 



43 Richard Grant 

1229 .. 

. 1229 

12 Bregwin 



44 Edmund Rich 



13 Jaenbert 

.. 766 

.. 766 

45 Boniface 



14 Ethelhard 



46 Robert Kilwardby 



15 Wulfred 

.. 805 

.. 805 

47 John Peckham 



16 Feologild 

.. 832 

.. 832 

48 Robert Winchelsey ... 



17 Ceolnoth 

- 833 


49 Walter Reynolds 



18 Ethelred 

. 870 

.. 870 

50 Simon Meopham 



19 Plegmund 
20 Athelm 

.. 890 
.. 909 

.. 890 
.. 914 

51 John Stratford 
52 Thomas Bradwardine 



ai Wulfhelm 


.. 923 

53 Simon Islip 



22 Oil i 

.. 926 

.. 942 

54 Simon Langham 


. 1366 

23 Dunstan 


.. 960 

55 William Whittlesey ... 

1362 . 


.. 080 

9 8 

p )6 Simon Sudbury 

1362 . 

* *375 

25 Siric 

.. 985 

.. 990 

57 William Courtenay 


. 1381 

26 Elfric 

.. 990 

.. 995 

58 Thomas Arundel 



.. O8 A 

59 Roger Walden 


. I3Q.8 

28 Living 

.. 999 

.. 013 

60 Henry Chicheley 

1408 . 


29 Ethelnoth 

.. 1020 

.. 020 

61 John Stafford 

1425 . 


30 Eadsige 
31 Robert 

.. 1044 

... 051 

62 John Kemp 
63 Thomas Bourciner 

1419 . 



32 Stigand (.dep. 1070) 

.. I0 43 

... 052 

64 John Morton 


.. 1486 



Names of Archbishops. 

Year Ace. 
of or 
Con-;. Trans. 

Year Ace. 
Names of Archbishops. of or 
Cons. Trans. 


A.D. A.D. 


ge Henry X)ecin...... 

i A n 


7p Thomas Tenison 1692 . 


66 William Warham 

. I5O2. 


80 William Wake 1705. 

* w yD 
. 1716 

67 Thomas Cranmer 



81 John Potter '7'5- 

J 737 

68 Reginald Pole 



82 Thomas Herring 1738. 


69 Matthew Parker 



83 Matthew Hutton 1743- 

I 7S7 

70 Edmund Grindal 



84 Thomas Seeker 1735 . 


71 John Whitgift 



85 Frederick Cornwallis... 1750. 


72 Richard Bancroft 

J 597- 

. 1604 

86 John Moore 1775 . 


73 George Abbot 

. 1609 . 

. 1611 

87 Charles Manners Sutton 1792. 


88 William Howley 1813. 


75 William Juxon 


. 1660 

89 John Bird Sumner 1828. 


76 Gilbert Sheldon 

1660 . 


90 Charles Thos. Longley 1836. 


77 William Sancroft 

. 1678. 


91 ArchibaldCampbellTait 1856 . 


(deprived in 1690) 
78 John Tillotson 

. 1691 . 

. 1691 

92 Edward White Benson 1877 . 



(Reprinted by permission from the Canterbury Diocesan Calendar.} 


598. AUGUSTINE, ordained by Etherius, Abp. of Aries ; founds Ch. Ch. and St. 

Augustine's (c. 610) ; buried at St. Augustine's. 
614. LAURENTIUS, cons, by St. Augustine; reconciles Eadbald to the Church ; 

bur. at St. A. 

619. MELLITUS, first Bp. of London; bur. at St. A. 
624. J USTUS, first Bp. of Rochester ; Canterbury confirmed as the metropolitan 

see by Pope Boniface. 
627. HONORIUS (cont. with Pope Honorius), cons, by Paulinus, Abp. of York, at 

Lincoln ; bur. at St. A. 

653. DEUSDEDIT, cons, by Ithamar, Bp. of Rochester ; bur. at St. A. 
666. THEODORE (of Tarsus) ; councils of Heorford and Hethfield ; extends his 

jurisdiction over all England ; arranges dioceses and appoints bishops ; 

bur. at St. A. 
689. BRIHTWALD, Abbot of Reculver, cons, by Bregwin, Metropol. of Wales 

" Up to this time the abps. were sent from Rome, thenceforward they were 

all Englishmen " (R. de Diceta, Hist. Archiep. Cant.) ; bur. at St. A. 
726. TATWYNE (death of Bede) ; bur. at St. A. 
729. NOTHELM, Pr. of London, cons, at Rome by Pope Gregory II. ; bur. at 

St. A. 
735. CUTHBERT, Abbot of Lyminge, the first who was buried at Ch. Ch. ; all his 

successors (except Jaenberht) were also buried there. 
759. BREGWIN; died at Canterbury, bur. at C. C. ; called in the obituary 

'' Confessor." 
763 (or 4). JAENBERHT, Abbot of St. A. ; Oflfa of Mercia endeavours to displace 

him, but fails. 
790. ADELARD (or Ethelhard), Bishop of Winchester ; obtains a confirmation of 

the privileges of the see from Pope Leo III. against the King of Mercia. 
803. WULFRED, cons, at Rome ; bur. at C. C. 

829. FLEODEGILD (or Feologild); dies three months after his election. Vacancy 

of one year. 

830. CEOLNOTH ; gave Great Chart to C. C. 

870. ETHELRED, cons, at Rome by Pope Adrian II., sate eighteen years. Vacancy 

of two years. 
890 (or i). PLEGMUND, cons, at Rome by Pope Formosus ; holds a council of the 

West Saxons ; ordained seven bps. at C. C. 
923. ATHELM (or Adhelm); cons. Athelstan K. of England. 
928. WULFHELM, Bp. of Wells (not mentioned in obituary book). 
941. ODO (or Otho), Bp. of Malmesbury, called "Confessor" and " the Holy ; " 

cons. Kings Edmund and Edred ; removes relics of Wilfrid from Ripon to 





[AtYSNE, Bp of Winchester, who died on his way to Rome, and 

BRYTHELM, Bp. of Wells, were successively elected, but never sate.] 
959. DUNSTAN, Abbot of Glastonbury ; cons. Edgar and Edwin the Martyr ; 

was nephew to Abp. Athelm ; restores monasticism and incorporates the 

smaller monasteries with C. C. J bur. at C. C., though his relics were 

claimed for Glastonbury. 
988. ATHELGAR (or Ethelgar), monk of Glastonbury, Abbot of Winchester, Bp. 

of Selsey ; sate only fifteen months. 

990. SIR ic (or Siricius), Bp. of Wilton, previously monk of Glastonbury ; substi- 
tutes regulars for seculars in C. C. 

995. ALURIC (or Alfric), Bp. of Wilton, called "Confessor" (Obit.). 
1006. ELPHEGE, Prior of Glastonbury, Abbot of Bath, and Bp. of Winchester ; 

murdered by the Danes ; bur. at St. Paul's. London ; trans, to C. C. by 

Canute ; commemorated as a martyr. Vacancy of a year. 
1018. LIVVING, Bp. of Wells ; cons. Edmund Ironside and Canute. 
1020. ETHELNOTH (or Egelnoth), called the ' Good," monk of Glastonbury, 

Bishop of Lincoln ; cons. Harold and Hardicanute. 
1038. EADSIN, Harold's chaplain ; cons. Edward King of England. 
1050. ROBERT, Abbot of Jumieges, Bp. of London ; expelled from England as a 

Norman ; bur. at Jumieges. 

1052. STIGAND, Harold's chaplain, Bp. of the S. Saxons and afterwards of Win- 
chester ; deposed by a council at Winchester ; died in prison. Vacancy 

of two years. 
1070. LAN FRANC, Abbot of Bee, then of Caen, cons, at Canterbury ; asserts the 

primacy for C. against York ; cons. William Rufus ; founds St. Alban's 

Abbey ; recovers twenty-one manors for his church ; introduces the 

prebendal instead of the older conventual system ; divides the archiep. 

manors from those of the monastery. Vacancy of four years. 
1093. ANSELM, Abbot o 1 Bee, b. at Aosta ; controversy on Investiture ; forbids 

marriage of clergy ; holds a council in London. Vacancy of five years. 
1114. RALPH DE TURBINE, Bp. of Rochester ; cons. Adela as Queen of England 

at Windsor. 
1123. WILLIAM CORBOIL, Prior of St. Osyth ; cons. Stephen as king contrary 

to his promise to Queen Matilda ; dedicates C. C. in presence of King 

Henry, May 4, 1130. Vacancy of two years. 

1138. THEOBALD, Abbot of Bee; cons. Henry, son of Matilda, as K. of E. 
1162. THOMAS A BECKET, Archd. of Canterbury, Provost of Beverley Council 

of Clarendon ; conflict with the king ; slain December 22, 1170. 
1174. RICHARD, Prior of Dover; C.C. burnt down, 1174; controversy between 

abp. and Abbot of St. Augustine's closed ; dies at Bp. of Rochester's 

Manor of Hailing. 
1184. BALDWIN, Bp. of Worcester, made Legatus natus by Pope Urban ; cons. 

Richard King of England. ; goes to the Holy Land, and dies at Acre. 

Vacancy of three years. 
1193. HUBERT WALTER, Bp. of Salisbury, confirmed in legatine office; cons. 

King John. Vacancy of three years. 
1207. STEPHEN LANGTON, cardinal; England under interdict; council at 

Oxford ; monks of C. allowed by the pope to choose their abp. 
1229. RICHARD LE GRAND ; sate two years. Vacancy of two years. 
1233. EDMUND LE RICH, of Abingdon ; conflict with King Henry on the Rights 

of the Church of Canterbury ; retires 10 Pontigny, and dies there : 

canonized. (The list of Radulphus de Diceto ends here.) 
i243.*BoNiFAtE, a Prince of Savoy, uncle to Queen Eleanor ; builds the college 

(or hospital) of Maidstone and the hall of the Palace at Canterbury, 

Lambeth Chapel ; dies at his castle in Savoy. 
1272. ROBERT KILWARDBY, of the Order (Dom.) of Friars' Preachers ; created 

cardinal, and takes the sacred vessels and registers of Canterbury to 

Rome ; dies there. 
1279. JOHN PtCKHAM, a Minorite ; urges residence upon the clergy ; endeavours 

to get the restoration of the previous registers ; the registers of the see at 

Lambeth begin with his visitation of his manors in 1279 ; dies at Mortlake, 

and is buried at Canterbury in the Martyrdom. 
1292. ROBERT DE WINCHELSEY ; conflict with King Edward on the Subsidy ; 

exiled, returning, dies at Oxford. 



1314. WALTER REYNOLDS ; increase of pluralities ; fall of the Knights Templars ; 
fresh taxation of abp.'s manors. (The register of Prior Henry de Estria 
ends here.) 

1328. SIMON MEOPHAM ; conflict with the monks of C. C. ; results in his ruin and 
death, under excommunication, at Mortlake. 

1333. JOHN DE STRATFORD ; obtains a reversal of the decree against his 
predecessor ; forms park at Otford, and endows a college at Stratford-on- 
Avon, his birthplace. 

1349. THOMAS BRADWARDINE ; writes a noble work in defence of the Augustinian 
doctrine of grace ; dies of the plague a few weeks after his cons. ; Abp. 
Ufford appointed in his stead, but died before his cons. 

1349. SIMON ISLIP ; visits the diocese in 1350 ; prevalence of non-residence of 
clergy ; pluralities somewhat restricted. 

1366. SIMON LANGHAM, cr. cardinal; increase of pluralities; rise of Wiclif; 
resigns the see. 

1368. WILLIAM WHITTLESEY, Bp. of Worcester, nephew of Abp. Islep ; 
exchanges of livings increase ; Papal Bulls prohibited. 

1375. SIMON UE SUDBURY, Bp. of London; inquires into the state of benefices 
held by foreigners ; Edward the Black Prince bur. at C. C. ; abp. ordered 
by the pope to proceed against Wiclif; great schism of the West, English 
clergy hold with Urban ; abp. slain in rebellion of Wat Tyler. 

1381. WILLIAM COURTENAY, Bp. of Hereford, of London ; builds Saltwood 
Castle ; persecution of Lollards ; holds a visitation in 1393. 

1396. THOMAS ARUNDFL, son of E. of Arundel, by dau. of E. of Lancaster; 
attainted, and inventory of his possessions taken at Lyminge ; restored 
in blood on death of Richard II. ; persecutes the Lollards with the 
greatest severity ; builds the Arundel Steeple in C. C. and gives five bells 
to the cathedral ; died at Hackington. 

1414. HENRY CHICHELE ; founds All Souls' Coll., Oxford ; founds library of C. C. ; 
conflict with Card. Beaufort for precedence as Legatus natus, ended by 
Eugenius IV. in favour of the cardinal as I*egatus a latere ; bur. in C. C. 
with unusual splendour. 

1442. JOHN STAFFORD, Bp. of Bath and Wells ; deaths of Dukes of Exeter and 
Suffolk, and of Lyndwode, author of the " Provinciale." 

1452. JOHN KEMPB, cardinal, of the family of the Kempes of Ollantigh. 

1454. THOMAS BOBRGCHIHR, of the family of the Earls of Ewe ; gives Knole 
in Sevenoaks to the see ; crowns Edward IV. and celebrates his marriage 
with Elizabeth Woodville ; cr. cardinal ; entertains king and queen at 

1486. JOHN MORTON, a devoted servant of Henry VI. ; restores and increases 
the buildings of the see at Knole, Maidstone, Aldington, Charing, Ford, 
Lambeth, and Canterbury ; builds central tower at C. C. and gateway 
towers at Lambeth ; bur. in C. C., in the crypt. 

1500. HENRY DENE (or Deny), dies before his enthronization. (The obituary of 
C. C. ends here.) 

1502. WILI IAM WARHAM, the friend of Erasmus; visits the diocese in 1511, 
attended by his chancellor, Cuthbert Tonstal, afterwards Bp. of Durham ; 
presides at the Convocation which declares the freedom of the C. of E. 
against the claims of the papacy ; struggles vainly against influence of 
Wolsey ; bur. in C. C. 

1533. THOMAS CRANMER ; opening of Reformation ; dissolution of monasteries ; 
compilation of Liturgy and Articles ; breach with the papacy ; Convoca- 
tion, originally employed for civil purposes, assumes the form of a synod, 
and a legislative position in the Church ; abp. deprived by Q. Mary, and 

1556. REGINALD POLE, cardinal ; "reconciliation "of England with the papacy ; 
visitation of diocese discloses the ru n and desolation of the churches, and 
the loss or destruction of their furniture and vestments ; the cardinal dies 
on the same day as the queen ; buried hastily under a temporary brick 
grave in C. C-, over which were his a- ms and quartenngs, now obliterated. 

1559. MATT HEW PARKER, chaplain to Q. Anne Boleyn ; Reformation re-estab- 
lished ; Liturgy of 1562 substituted for that of 1552 ; rise of the Puritans ; 
abp visits the diocese in 1561 and 1571 ; bur. at Lambeth. 

1575. EDMUND GKINDAL, endeavours to reconcile the Puritans by encouraging 




meetings for prayer and exposition of Scriptures ; offends the queen and 
the High Ch. party ; praised by the learned continental Reformers. 

1583. JOHN WHITGIFT, Calvinist in doctrine, but affecting the princely habits of 
the most worldly of his predecessors ; frames the " Lambeth Articles ; " 
recovers the property of the see, and endows churches out of the money 
thus acquired ; assists at the Hampton Court Conf. 

1604. RICHARD BANCROFT ; opposes Calvinism and the Scotch and Genevan 
discipline ; assists at the Hampton Court Conference as Bp. of London ; 
admired by Clarendon. 

1610. GEORGE ABBOTT ; reaction in favour of Puritanism ; neglect of churches, 
and adoption of Genevan forms ; abp. popular with the Puritan party, but 
by his great laxity prepares the way for the troubles which succeeded his 

1633. WILLIAM LAUD; conflict opens in the diocese; Kentish petition invokes 
the aid of Parliament against the bps. ; Sir Edward Dering's " Committee 
on Religion," 1641 ; outbreak of the Rebellion, in which the king and the 
abp. perish. Abp. Laud was martyred in 1645. Interregnum of the 
archbishopric till the Restoration. 

1660. WILLIAM JUXON, the companion of Charles I. on the scaffold ; conciliates 
the Nonconformists. 

1663. GILBERT SHELDON, a violent enemy of the Puritans ; urges the putting 
into execution of all the laws against Nonconlormity ; chief promoter of 
the Act of Uniformity and of the " Five-mile Act ; '' renders the schism 
incurable ; is a munificent benefactor of the U. of Oxford. 

1677. WILLIAM SANCROFT (or Sandcroft) ; resists the attempts of James II. to 
introduce popery by the way of ".Toleration ; " one of the " Petitioners " 
sent to the Tower ; refuses after the Revolution to take the oath of 
allegiance to William and Mary ; deprived of the archbishopric ; retires 
to his estate of Fressingfield in Suffolk, and dies there. 

1691. JOHN TILLOTSON ; Sancroft continues his refusal to take the oath to W. 
and M. and is deposed ; secession of the Nonjurors ; Revolution vindi- 
cated by Bp. Lloyd ; publication of Overall's Convocation Book by 
Sancroft ; Toleration Act passed ; abp. dies one year after Sancroft. 

1695. THOMAS TENISON ; promotes toleration ; controversy on " Occasional 
Conformity ; " founds chapel and library for St. Martin's-in-the-Fields ; 
preaches funeral sermon on Q. Mary. 

1715. WILLIAM WAKE ; engages in controversy with Bossuet in earlier life ; 
efforts at reunion with Rome by means of mutual concession ; restores 
palaces at Lambeth and Croydon ; leaves large bequests to Ch. Ch., 

1736. JOHN POTTER ; recognizes Moravian Brethren as an ancient Episcopal 
Church and Count Zinzendorf as bishop ; promotes union of Noncon- 
formists ; a learned abp. and zealous diocesan ; Wesley preaches in 
Kent, 1738. 

3747. THOMAS HERRING; restores palace of Croydon; rise of Methodism^ it 
spreads rapidly over Kent ; opening of the darkest period of C. of E., 
which extends over the next five primacies. 

1757. MATTHEW HUTTON, never resided at Lambeth ; bur. at Lambeth Church. 

He was descended from Dr. Matthew Hutton, Abp. of York in Q. 
Elizabeth's reign. 

1758. THOMAS SECKER, a popular writer of sermons, originally studied medicine ; 

Bp. of Oxford for twenty years ; assisted in establishing American 
bishoprics ; a munificent benefactor of the Church societies ; Dr. Porteus. 
Bp. of London, was among his chaplains, as he was of his successor, Abp. 

1768. FREDERICK CORNWALLIS, of the family of the Marquis Cornwallis, lived in 
great state at Lambeth ; little known in the diocese ; attack of Lambeth 
Palace during riots of 1780. 

1783. JOHN MOORE ; period of the great sinecures and of nepotism in the Church ; 
spread of Methodism in Kent. During this primacy were consecrated 
Samuel Seabury at Aberdeen to be Bp. of Connecticut, and first bp. of 
the American Church, on Nov. 14, 1784 ; and the following in Lambeth 
Palace Chapel viz. the second, third, and fourth bps. of the American 
Church, William White, Pennsylvania, and Samuel Provoost, New York, 



on Feb. 4, 1787 ; James Madison, Virginia, Sept. 19, 1790 ; the first of 
the Colonial bishops, Charles Inglis, Nova Scotia, Aug. 12, 1787; and 
Jacob Mountain, Quebec, July 7, 1793. 

1805. CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON, of the ducal family of Rutland ; carries on 
the traditions of his two immediate predecessors ; always visits the diocese 
in st ite ; age of pluralities and continued nepotism ; Aldington purchased 
for the see. 

1828. WILLIAM HOWLEY, Bp. of London ; crowns William IV. and Queen 
Adelaide and Queen Victoria ; Eccl. Commission created ; changes in 
the episcopate ; last Abp. under the earlier system ; bur. at Addington. 

1848. JOHN BIRD SUMNER, Bp. of Chester ; controversies arising out of the 
Oxford Movement, Essays and Reviews, Bp. Colenso's publications ; 
Gorham appeal, difference between Abp. and Bp. of Exeter thereupon , 
fulfils all diocesan duties to an advanced age ; bur. at Addington. 

1862. CHARLES THOMAS LONGLKV, first Bp. of Ripon, then Bp. ol Durham, then 
Abp. of York, then elevated to Canterbury ; Gen. Conference of Anglican 
bps. at Lambeth ; institutes Church Building and Endowment Society for 
the diocese ; bur. at Addington. 

1868. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL TAIT, Dean of Carlisle, Bp. of London ; second 
Conference of Anglican bps. at Lambeth ; presides over the Commissions 
for Cathedral Reform and Eccl. Courts Inquiry ; bur. at Addington. 



(Taken from Stubbs 1 "Episcopal Succession in England" as far 
as the year 1857, and subsequently from the official Registers of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. ) 


When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


Nov. 16, 597, 


Mellitus (London) ... ... 604 

at Aries 

Justus (Rochester) 604 

Laurentius (Canterbury) ... 604 


Mar. 26, 668, 

Pope Vitalian 

Putta (Rochester) 669 

at Rome 

Bisa (Dunwich) 669 

Leutherius (Dorchester) ... 670 

Whifrid (Li hfield) ... 672 

Bedwin (Elmham) 673 

F.tti (Dunwich) ... ... 673 

Saxulf(Lichfield) 675 

Erkenwald (London) ... 675 

Cuichelm (Rochester) ... 676 

Headda (Winchester) ... 676 

Bosa (York) 678 

Gebmund (Rochester) . . 678 

Bosel (Worcester) :.. . . 680 

Cuthwin (Leicester) . . 680 

Ethel win (Lindsey) . . 680 

Trumwin (Whithern) . . 681 

Trumbert (Hexham) ... 681 

Cuthbert (Lindisfarne) ... 685 

John (Hexham) 687 


Dec. 4, 1093, 

Thomas of York 

Bloett (Lincoln) 1094 

at Canter- 

Maurice of Lon- 

Saml o' Haingley (Dublin) 1096 



Gerard (Hereford) 1096 

Walkelin of 

Samson (Worcester) ... 1096 

Gundulf of Ro- 

Malchus (Waterford) ... 1096 
Wm. :eGiffard(Winchester) i 07 


Roger (Salisbury) ... ... i 07 

Osmund of 

Wm. Warelwast (Exeter)... i 07 

Robert of Here- 

Reinhelm (Hereford) ... i 07 
Urban ( Llandaff) ... ... i 07 


Richd. de Beames (London) i 08 

Robert of Lich- 


Ralph d'Escures (Roches- 
ter") ... ... noS 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


John of Bath 


Ralph of Chi- 


Herbert of Thet- 



June 3, 1162, 

Henry of Win- 

Robert of Maledon (Here- 

at Canter- 


ford) _ 1163 


Nigel of Ely 

Roger Fitz Count (Worces- 

Robert of Bath 

ter) ... 1164 


William of Nor- 


Hilary of Chi- 


Walter of Ro- 





Nicolas of Llan- 


Gilbert of Here- 


Robert of Lin- 


David of St. 


Geoffrey of St. 


Richard of Lich- 


Bartholomew of 



June 17, 1408, 

Pope Gregory 

Stephen Patrington (St. 

at Lucca 


David's) 1415 

(St. Da- 

John Wakering (Norwich) 1416 


Kdmund Lacy (Hereford) 1417 

John Chandler (Salisbury) 1417 

John Langdon i Rochester) 1422 
Wm. Gray (London) ... 1426 

JohnRickingale(Chichester) 1426 
William Alnwick (Norwich) 1426 

Robert Neville (Salisbury) 1427 

Thomas Brown (Rochester) 1433 
William Wells (Rochester) 1437 

Richard Praty (Chichester) 1438 


Sept. 25, 1502, 
at Fulham 

Richard of Win- 

David ap Owen (St. Asaph) 1504 
Richard Mayew (Hereford) 1504 


John of Exeter 

William Barons (London) 1504 
John Fisher (Rochester) ... 1504 
Hugh Oldham (Exeter) ... 1505 

Robt. Sherborn(St. David's) 1505 

John Penny (Bangor) ... 1505 
Barnes Stanley (Ely) ... 1506 

fhos Skirvington (Bangor) 1509 

Edmund Birkhead(S. Asaph) 1513 
Thomas Wolsey (Lincoln; 1514 

William Atwater (Lincoln) 1514 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


Nicolas West (Ely) 1515 


Charles Booth (Hereford) 1516 

Henry Standish (St. Asaph) 1518 

John Voysey (Exeter) ... 1519 

John Longlands (Lincoln) 1521 

Juthbert Tonstall (London) 1522 

Itichd. Rawlins (St.David's) 1523 


Mar. 30, 1533, 

John of Lincoln 

Thomas Goodrich (Ely) ... 1534 

at Westmin- 

John of Exeter 

Rowland Lee (Lichfield) ... 1534 


Henry of St. 

John Salcot (Bangor) ... 1534 


Nicolas Shaxton (Salisbury) 1535 

Edward Fox (Hereford) ... 1535 

Hugh Latimer (Worcester) 1535 

John Hilsey (Rochester) ... 1535 

George Brown (Dublin) ... 1536 

Thomas Manning (Ipswich) 1536 

John Salisbury (Thetford) 1536 
Richd.Sampson(Chichester) 1536 

William Barlow(St. David's) 1536 

William Rugg (Norwich)... 1536 

Robert Parfew (St. Asaph) 1536 

Lewis Thomas(Shrewsbury) 1537 

John Bird (Penreth) ... 1537 

Thos. Morlev(Marlborough)i537 

John Bell (Worcester) ... 1539 

John Skip (Hereford) ... 1539 

John Wakeman (Gloucester) 1541 

George Day (Chichester)... 1543 

Robert Ferrar (St. David's) 1548 

John Poynet (Rochester)... 1550 
John Hooper (Gloucester) 1551 

Miles Coverdale (Exeter) 1551 

John Scory (Rochester) ... 1551 

John Taylor (Lincoln) ... 1552 

John Harley (Hereford) ... 1553 


Dec. 17, 1559, 
at Lambeth 

Wi.':iam of Chi- 
John of Here- 

Edmund Grindal (London) 1559 
Richard Cox (Ely) 1559 
Rowland Meyrick (Bangor) 1559 
Edwyn Sandys (Worcester) 1559 

John of Bedford 
Miles (ex) ol 

Nicolas Bullingham(Lincoln)i56o 
John Jewell (Salisbury) ... 1560 
Thomas Young (St. David's) 1560 

Richard Davies (St. Asaph) 1560 

Edmund Gheast(Rochester) 1560 

Gilbert Berkeley (Bath) ... 1560 

Thomas Bentham(Coventry) 1560 

William Alley (Exeter) ... 1560 

John Parkhurst (Norwich) 1560 
Robert Home (Winchester) 1561 

Edmund Scambler (Peter- 

borough) 1561 

Thomas Davis (St. Asaph) 1561 

Richd.Cheyney(Gloucester) 1562 

Hugh Jones (Llandaff) ... 1566 

Nicolas Robinson (Bangor) 1566 

Richard Rogers (Uover) ... 1569 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


Richard Curteis( Chichester) 1570 


Thomas Cowper (Lincoln) 1571 
William Bradbridge( Exeter) 1571 

Edmund Freke (Rochester) 1572 

William Hughes (St.Asaph) 1573 

William Hie thin (Llandaff) 1575 


Nov. 1 8, 1621, 

George of Lon- 

William Juxon (London) ... 1633 

at London 


Edmund Griffith (Bangor) 1634 

House (St. 

John of Worces- 

Francis Dee (Peterborough) 1634 


Nicolas of Ely 

Matthew Wren (Hereford) 1635 
Roger Mainwaring (St. 

George of Chi- 

David's) 1636 


Robert Skinner (Bristol) ... 1637 

John of Oxford 

William Roberts (Bangor) 1637 

Theophilus of 

John Warner (Rochester)... 1638 


Brian Duppa (Chichester) 1638 

John Towers(Peterborough) 1639 
Morgan Owen (Llandaff)... 1640 


Jan. 27, 1678. 

Henry of Lon- 

William Gulston (Bristol) 1679 

at. West- 


William Beaw (Llandaff)... 1679 


Seth of Salis- 

William Lloyd (St. Asaph) 1680 


Robt. Frampton(Gloucester) 1681 

Joseph of Peter- 

Francis Turner (Rochester) 1683 


Lawrence Womock (St. 

John of Roches- 

David's) 1683 


Thomas Spratt (Rochester) 1684 

Peter of Ely 

Thomas Ken (Bath) ... 1685 

Guy of Bristol 

Baptist Levinz (Sodor and 

Thomas of Lin- 

Man) 1685 


Thos. White (Peterborough) 1685 

Thomas of Exe- 



John Lloyd (St. David's)... 1685 

Samuel Parker (Oxford) ... 1686 

Thos. Cartwright (Chester) 1686 

Thos. Watson (St. David's) 1687 

Timothy Hall (Oxford) ... 1688 


Oct. 3, 1813, 

Charles of Can- 

John Matthew Turner (Cal- 

at Lambeth 


cutta) 1829 


George J. of 

Richard Bagot (Oxford) ... 1829 
James Henry Monk (Glou- 

John of Salis- 

cester) 1830 

William of Ox- 

Henry Philpotts (Exeter) 1831 
Edward Maltby (Chichester)i83i 


Daniel Wilson (Calcutta)... 1832 

Edward Grey (Hereford)... 1832 

Joseph Allen (Bristol) ... 1834 
Daniel Corrie (Madras) ... 1835 

Geo. Jeh. Mountain (Mon- 

treal) 1836 

Wm. G. Broughton (Aus- 

tralia) 1836 

Samuel Butler (Lichfield) 1836 

William Otter (Chichester) 1836 

Edward Denison (Salisbury)i837 

Edward Stanley (Norwich) 1837 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 



Thos. Musgrave (Hereford) 1837 
Thomas Carr (Bombay) ... 1837 

Geo. John T. Spencer 

(Madras) 1837 

James Bowstead (Sodor and 

Man) 1838 

George Davys (Peterboro') 1839 

Aubrey Geo. Spencer (New- 

foundland) 1839 

John Strachan (Toronto) ... 1839 

Connop Thiriwall (St. 

David's) 1840 

P. N. Shuttleworth (Chi- 

chester) 18^0 

George Augustus Selwyn 

(New Zealand) 1841 

Mich. Solomon Alexander 

(Jerusalem) 1841 

Ash. Turner Gilbert (Chi- 

chester) 1842 

John Lonsdale (Lichfield) 1843 
Ed. Field (Newfoundland) 1844 


Thomas Turton (Ely) ... 1845 

John Medley (Fredericton) 1845 

John Chapman (Colombo) 1845 

Saml. Wilberforce (Oxford) 1845 

Samuel Gobat (Jerusalem) 1846 

Robert Gray (Capetown) 1847 
Augustus Short (Adelaide) 1847 
Charles Perry (Melbourne) 1847 

William Tyrrell (Newcastle) 1847 


Sept. 14, 1828, 

Edward of York 

Renn Dick Hampden 

at York 

Charles Richard 

(Hereford) 1848 


of Winchester 

George Smith (Victoria) ... 1849 

Christopher of 

David Anderson (Rupert's 


Land) 1849 

Samuel Hinds (Norwich)... 1849 

Alfred Ollivant (Llandaff) 1849 
Thomas Dealtry (Madras) 1849 

Francis Fulford (Montreal) 1850 

Hibbert Binney (Nova 

Scotia) 1851 

John Harding (Bombay)... 1851 

Owen E.Vidal(Sierra Leone)i8s2 

John Jackson (Lincoln) ... 1853 
John Armstrong (Grahams- 

town) 1853 

John Wm. Colenso (Natal) 1853 
Walter Kerr Hamilton 

(Salisbury) 1854 

Francis Barker (Sydney) 1854 

Vincent William Ryan 

(Mauritius) 1854 

John Wills Weeks (Sierra 

Leone) 1855 

Reginald Courtenay (Ja- 

maica) 1856 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


Charles Baring (Gloucester 


and Bristol) 1856 

Henry J. C. Harper (Christ 

Church, N. Z.) 1856 

Archibald Campbell Tail 

(London) 1856 

Henry Cotterill (Grahams- 

town) 1856 

John Thomas Pelham (Nor- 

wich) 1857 

Matthew Blagden Hale 

(Perth) 1857 

John Bowen (Sierra Leone) 1857 

Benjamin Cronyn (Huron) 1857 

Stephen Jordan Rigand 

(Antigua) 1858 

George Ed. Lynch Cotton 

(Calcutta) 1858 

Edmund Hobhouse (Nel- 

son, N. Z.) 1858 

Charles John Abraham 

(Wellington, N. Z.) ... 1858 

George Hills (British Co- 

lumbia) 1859 

James Colquhoun Campbell 

(Bangor) 1859 

Piers Calverley Claughton 

(St. Helena) 1859 

Edward Wyndham Tufnell 

(Brisbane) 1859 

Edward Hyndman Beckles 

(Sierra Leone) 1860 

Joseph Cotton Wigram 

(Rochester) 1860 

William Walrond Jackson 

(Antigua) 1860 

Henry Philpott (Worcester) 1861 

Frederick Cell (Madras) ... 1861 

Charles Caulfield (Nassau) i86t 

William Thomson (Glou- 

cester and Bristol) ... 1861 

Thomas Nettleship Staley 

(Hawaii) 1861 


Nov. 6, 1836, 

Edward of York 

William George Tozer 

at York 

John of Lincoln 
Hugh of Car- 

(Nyassa) 1863 
Edward Twells (Orange 


River) 1863 

John Bird of 

Charles John Ellicott (Glou- 


cester and Bristol) ... 1863 

Mesac Thomas (Goulburn) 1863 

Addington R. P. Venables 

(Nassau) 1863 

Edward Harold Browne 

(Ely) 1864 

Francis Jeune (Peterboro') 1864 

Charles Henry Bromby 

(Tasmania) 1864 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


Samuel Adjai Crowther 


(West Africa) 1864 

Robert Machray (Rupert's 

Land) 1865 

Henry Lascelles Jenner 

(Dunedin, N. Z.) ... 1866 

Andrew Burn Suter (Nel- 

son, N. Z.) 1866 

Robert Milman (Calcutta) 1867 

Charles Richard Alford 

(Victoria) 1867 

William Collinson Sawyer 

(New South/Wales) ... 1867 

Thomas Legh Claughton 

(Rochester) 1867 

James B. K. Kelly (New- 

foundland) 1867 

Charles Amyand Harris 

(Gibraltar) 1868 

James Atlay (Hereford) ... 1868 


Nov. 23, 1856, 
at White- 
hall (Lon- 

John Bird of 
Ash. Turner of 

Henry Alexander Douglas 
(Bombay) 1869 
Christopher Wordsworth 



(Lincoln) 1869 

John of Lincoln 

Thomas Goodwin Hatchard 

Henry M. of 

(Mauritius) 1869 
James Francis Turner(Graf- 

Aubrey Geo. of 

ton and Armidale) ... 1869 


William Garden Cowie 

David of Ru- 

(Auckland, N. Z.) ... 1869 

pert's Land 

Samuel Edward Marsden 

(Bathurst) 1869 

Walter Chambers (Labuan) 1869 

AshtonOxenden(Montreal) 1869 

George Moberly (Salisbury) 1869 

Hugh Willoughby Jermyn 

(Colombo) 1871 

Alfred Willis (Hawaii) ... 1872 

Peter Sorensen Royston 

(Mauritius) 1872 

John Horden (Moosonee) 1872 

William Armstrong Russell 

(North China) 1872 

John Mitchinson (Barba- 

does) 1873 

James Russell Woodford 

(Ely) 1873 

Charles Waldegrave Sand- 

ford (Gibraltar) 1874 

William Carpenter Bompas 

(Athabasca) 1874 

John M'Lean (Saskatche- 

wan) 1874 

William West Jones (Cape- 

town) 1874 

William Basil Jones (St. 

David's) 1874 




When and 
where conse- 

By whom con- 

Bishops consecrated by him. 


Edward Steere (Central 


Africa) 1874 
Samuel Thornton (Ballarat) 1875 

Reginald Stephen Copleston 

(Colombo) 1875 

Louis George Mylne (Bom- 

bay) 1876 

James Moorhouse (Mel- 

bourne) 1876 

Edward Ralph Johnson 

(Calcutta) 1876 

Edward White Benson 

(Truro) 1877 

Anthony Wilson Thorold 

(Rochester) 1877 

Thomas Valpy French 

(Lahore) 1877 

Jonathan Holt Titcomb 

(Rangoon) 1877 

Edward Trollope (Notting- 

ham) 1877 

Henry Brougham Bousfield 

(Pretoria) 1878 

Llewellyn Jones (New- 

foundland) 1878 

F. A. R. Cramer Roberts 

(Nassau) 1878 

George Henry Stanton 

(North Queensland) ... 1878 

William Dalrymple Mac- 

lagan (Lichfield) 1878 

William Ridley (Caledonia) 1879 

John M. Speechly (Travan- 

core) 1879 

William Walsham How 

(Bedford) 1879 

Joseph Barclay (Jerusalem) 1879 

Aston Windeyer Sillitoe 

(New Westminster) ... 1879 

Josiah Brown Pearson 

(Newcastle, N. S. W.) ... 1880 

Enos Nuttall (Jamaica) ... 1880 

Charles Perry Scott (North 

China) 1880 

George Evans Moule (North 

China) 1880 

George Frederick Hose 

(Singapore and Labuan) i88t 

John Miller Strachan (Ran- 

goon) 1882 

Herbert Bree (Barbadoes) 1882 

Alfred Blomfield (Colches- 

ter) ... ... ... ... 1882 

Charles James Branch 

(Coadjutor, Antigua) ... 1882 



Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury 114 

Advertisements, Parker's no 

Agatho, Pope 26 

Aidan, St 20 

Albany, Duke of 201 

Alexander, Bishop in Jerusalem ... 148 

Alexander, Pope 58 

All Souls' College, Oxford 73 

America, Church in 153 

Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester... 117 
Anselm, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 34-47 

Arches, Court of ... 132, 150, 165, 173 

Ariminum, Council of 

Aries, Council of 8 

Arnold, Dr 187 

Arthur, Prince 81, 90 

Articles, The Six 96 

, The Ten 98 

, The Thirteen 109 

, The Thirty-nine ... 109,111 

, The Forty-two 109 

Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury 66 
Association of Friends of the 

Church 144 

Augrustine, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 7-19 

Augustine's Oak, Conference at ... 17 


Baden Powell, Professor 165 

Bancroft, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury ... ... ... ... ... 114 

Barclay, Bishop in Jerusalem ... 148 
Barlow, Bishop of Bath and Wells 106 

Bate, Rev. George 127 

Becket, Archbishop of Can- 
terbury 48-61, 96 

Benedict Biscop 22 

Bertha, Queen of Kent ... ... n 

Bible, English version of ... 97, 109 

Bill for Union 139 

Bishop of London's Fund 193 


Bishops, Appointment of 63 

Bishops' Book, 1 he ... ... ... 98 

Blomtield, Bishop of London 

146, 155, 
Boleyn, Anne ... ... 91, 95, 

Brooks, Bishop of Gloucester 

Buckingham, Duke of 17 

Burials Controversy ... ... ... oo 

Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury ... 39 
Butler, Charles 07 


Cairns, Lord ... ... 198 

Calvinists ... ... 79, 103, 115 

Canterbury Cathedral 14 

, St. Augustine's College ... 14 

Carmelites 65 

Cave-Browne, Rev. J 159 



Celibacy of the clergy ... 96, 103 
Chad, Bishop of York ... 24,33 

Chalcedon, Council of 27 

Charles I. ... ... ... 114, 126 

Charles II 128, 131 

Chicheley, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 62-75 

Church Association 182 

Building 157 

Discipline Act 108 

Missionary Society ... 

Clarendon, Constitutions of 
Clerical Vestments Bill 
Cloveshoo, Council of 

Codex E 

Colenso, Bishop ... 168, 175, 180, 191 

Colet, Dean ... _ 76 

Colonial Bishoprics Fund 146 

Colonial Episcopate, Growth of ... 152 

Columba, St 8 

" Confession " Controversy ... 189 

Congf d'tlire ... ... ...63,92,106 

Consistory Courts 132 

Convocation 85, 93, 123, 140, 167, 174 
, revival of 163 


.. 182 




Cotterill, Bishop of Grahamstown 189 

Coverdale, Miles 107 

Cranmer, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 89-100 

Cromwell, Oliver 127 

Crumwell, Thomas 92, 96 


Dean, Archbishop of Canterbury ... 8 1 

Dean of Chapels Royal 117 

Declaration for liberty of conscience 133 

of abhorrence ... ... ... 137 

Deusdedit, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury 21 

Directory of Public Worship ... 126 

Discipline, Church 146 

Disraeli, Mr, 183, 198 

Dissenters ... ... 133, 140, 144 

Divorce of Queen Katharine ... 94 
Doane, Bishop of New Jersey ... 152 
Dominicans 65 


Easter, Date of observance... 17, 21, 27 
Ebbsfleet, landing of St. Augustine 

Ecclesiastical Commission 142, 156, 171 

Courts Commission 200 

Education, Elementary 150 

Elizabeth, Queen ... 101, 105, 113 
Emancipation (Roman Catholic) 

Act 142 

English Church Union 182 

Episcopate, Increase of ... 24, 171 
Erasmus ... ... ... 76, 83 

Erastianism 140 

" Essays and Reviews " 165, 173, 181, 190 

Ethelbert, King of Kent u 

, Conversion of 14 

Evangelicals 159, 169 

Evelyn, John 127,129 


Fire of London 

Fisher, Controversy with Laud 

Fox, Bishop of Hereford ... 

Franciscans ... 

Fulford, Bishop of Montreal 

Fulham Orphanage ... 




Gardyner, Bishop of Winchester ... 89 
George 1 140 


George IV. 143 

Gladstone, Mr. ... 146, 183, 194 
Gobat, Bishop in Jerusalem ... 148 

Golden Rose 83 

Goodwin, Mr. C. W 166 

Gorham, Rev. G. C., contro- 
versy 149, 160 

Gray, Bishop of Capetown 168, 171, 196 
Gregory the Great, Pope ... 9, n, 15 

Gregory VII., Pope 45 

Gregory XL, Pope ... ... ... 67 

Gregory XII., Pope 67 

Grindal, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury 113 

Grossetete, Bishop of Lincoln ... 63 


Hadleigh Conference 
Hadrian, monk 
Hampden, Dr. 
Harrow School 
Hatfield, Synod of ... 

... 144 

21, 29 
... 149 
... 170 

Henry VII 82 

Henry VIII 82, 90 

Hertford, Council of 27 

High Commission, Court of 1 1 8, 132, 136 
Hodgkins, Bishop of Bedford ... 107 
He " 

Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont ... 180 
Howley, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 139-153 

Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln 63 


Innocent VII., Pope 66 

Ireland 121 

Irish Church, Disestablishment of 

183, 19 

ames I. 114, 116 

ames II 131 

erusalem, Bishopric in 147 

ewel's " Apology " ... ... 108 

ohn's, St., College, Oxford ... 73 

owett, Professor 166, 190 

udicial Committee of Privy 

Council 173, 190 

Justus, Bishop of Rochester ... 15 
Juxon, Archbishop of Canterbury 

121, 128 


Katharine, Queen 81, 90, 94 

Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells ... 134 




Lambeth Conference ... 177, 200 

Palace 74,106,112,120, 134,145,179 

Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury 36 

Latimer ... ... ... ... 99 

Latitudinarianism 128, 140 

Laud, Archbishop of Can- 
terbury 113-125 

Laurentius, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury 20 

Lay work 157 

Learning, Revival of 78 

Leicester, Earl of 109 

Liddell, Hon. and Rev. R. 165, 189 
Lingard ... ... ... ... 107 

Litany in English 98 

Liturgy for Anglican Church ... 15 
Lollard's Tower, Lambeth Palace 73 
Longley, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 170-185 

Long Parliament ... ... ... 123 

Luidhard, Bishop of Senlis ... 12 
Lutherans 79, 103 


Magna Charta 63 

Manchester, Diocese of 171 

Martin, St., Roman Church of ... 12 

Martin V., Pope 71 

Mary, Queen... ... ... ... 99 

Maurice, Rev. F. D. 148 

Mellitus, Bishop of London ... 15 
Methodism ... ... ... 140, 157 

Monasteries inspected 22 

suppressed 64 

Monmouth's rebellion 132 

Montagu, Dr. ... ... ... 116 

More, Sir Thomas 77, 83, 87 

Mortmain, Statute of ... ... 64 

Musgrave, Archbishop of Yoik ... 173 


" Nag's Head Fable " 
National Society 
Neile, Bishop of Winchester 
Newman, Rev. John Henry 

Ninian, St 


Non-residence Act 

Northampton, Council of ... 


Gates, Titus 

Offa, King of Mercia 
Oldcastle, Sir John ... 










Papal claims, Resistance to 

26, 35, 48, 75, 93 
Parker, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 101-112 

Parochial system, origin of ... 23 

Parr, Katharine 102 

Parry, Bishop of Dover 196 

Paschal, Pope 46 

Patrick, St 8 

Pattison, Rev. Mark 166 

Paul IV., Pope 105 

Paulinus, Archbishop of York 15, 20 

Penitentiary of England 92 

Petition of Right 117 

Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter 158, 161 

Pius V., Pope no 

Pluralities Act 146 

Pole, Cardinal 106 

Prairaunire, Statute of ... 64, 72 

Prayer-book 99, 103 

Presbyterianism ... ... 126, 139 

Protestants . 

... ... 103 

Provisors, Statute of 64 

Public Worship Regulation Act ... 197 

Puritans 103, 114, 124 

Pusey, Dr. 198 



Reform Bill 


Ripon, Diocese of ... 
Ritual disputes 

79, 94, 103 
142, 158 
... 99 
... 171 
165, 189 

Roman hierarchy in England in, 164 
Rose, Rev. Hugh James ... ... 144 

Rye House Plot 131 


Salisbury, Marquis of 198 

Bancroft, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 126-138 

Sardica, Council of 8 

Savoy Conference 128 

Scory, Bishop of Rochester ... 107 
Selwyn, Bishop of Lichfield ... 181 
Shaftesbury, Earl of ... 182, 197 

Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury 128 
Short Parliament ... ... ... 122 

Society for Promoting Christian 

Knowledge... ... ... ... 147 

Society for Propagation of Gospel 

147, 181 
Solemn League and Covenant 122, 128 

Star Chamber n8 

Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury 36 
Stonehouse, Kent ... ... ... 193 

Strafford, Earl of 120, 123 

Streanaeshalc, Synod of 21 

Suffragan Bishops 196 




Sumner, Archbishop of 
Canterbury ... ... 154-169 

Sumner, Bishop of Winchester ... 156 
Supremacy, Royal 77, 87, 106 


Tait, Archbishop of Can- 
terbury 186-202 

Temple, Bishop of Exeter 165, 190, 197 

Test Act ... _ 131 

Theobald, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury 49 

Theodore, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 20-33 

Thirl wall, Bishop of St. David's ... 179 

Tierney, Canon 107 

Tillotson, Arc .bishop of Canterbury 139 

Toleration Bill 139 

Tours, Council of 53 

Tractarian movement 140, 159, 189 
Trench, Archbishop of Dublin ... 195 

Trent, Council of 107 

Trinity Sunday, Festival 53 


Uniformity, Act of 106 

Urban, Pope 40 


Vergilius, Archbishop of Aries 

Victoria, Queen 

Vitalian, Pope 



Wales, Church of, Union with 

English Church 48 

Waltham, residence of Henry 

VIII 89 

Warham, Archbishop of 

Canterbury 76-88 

Wellington, Duke of ... 142, 155 

Wesley, John 140, 156 

Westminster, Council of 54 

Wnitby, Council of ... ... ... 24 

Whit house, Bishop of Illinois ... 179 
Whitgift, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury 113 

Wighard elected Archbishop of 
Canterbury... ... ... ... 21 

Wilfrid, Bishop of York ... 24, 31 

William of Orange 136 

William the Conqueror -16 

William IV 143 

Williams, Bishop of Lincoln ... 121 
Williams, Dr. Rowland ... 165, 190 

Wilson, Rev. H B 165, 190 

Wolsey, Archbishop of York 77, 83 
Wordsworth, Bishop ot Lincoln ... 170 

Wren, Sir Christopher 129 

Wycliffe, John 64 

Wykeham, William of 141 


York, Duke of 






ufjr for |)rmnotin0 Cjmstimt Jja 


A Series of Monograms on the Chief Fathers of the Church, the Father* 
selected being centres of influence at important periods of Church History, 
amd in important spheres of action. 

Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. each. 

Leo the Great 

By the Rev. CHARLES GORE, M.A. 

Gregory the Great. 

By the Rev. J. BARMBT, B.D. 

Saint Ambrose: his Life, Times, and Teaching. 


Saint Athanasius: his Life and Times. 

By the Rev. R. WHELER BUSH. (2s. 6rf.) 

Saint Augustine. 

By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D. 

Saint Basil the Great. 

By the Rev. RICHARD T. SMITH, B.D. 

Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, A.D. 10911153. 

By the Rev. S. J. BALES, M.A., D.C.L. (2s. 3d.) 

Saint Hilary of Poitiers, and Saint Martin of Tours. 

By the Rev. J. GIBSON CAZENOVE, D. D. 

Saint Jerome. 

By the Rev. EDWARD L. CUTTS, D.D. 

Saint John of Damascus. 

By the Rev. J. H. LUPTON, M.A. 

Saint Patrick: his Life and Teaching. 

By the Rev. E. J. NEWELL, M.A. (2s. Qd.) 

Synesius of Gyrene, Philosopher and Bishop. 


The Apostolic Fathers. 

By the Rev. H. S. HOLLAND. 

The Defenders of the Faith ; or, The Christian Apologists of 
the Second and Third Centuries. 

By the Rev. F. WATSON, M.A. 

The Venerable Bede. 

By the Rev. G. F. BROWNE. 



A Series of Books which shows that Science has for tJie masses as great 
interest as, and more edificat.ion than, the romances of the day. 

Small Post 8vo, cloth boards. 

COAL : and what we get from it. 

By Professor RAPHAEL MELDOLA, F.R.S., F.I.C. With numerous 

illustrations. 2s. &d. 

By Captain W. DE W. ABNEY, C.B., R.E., F.R.S. With several 

illustrations. 2s. 6d. 

By the Rev. Professor GEORGE HENSLOW, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S. 

With several illustrations. 2s. Qd. 

By H. MARSHALL WARD, M.A., F.R.S., F.L.S. With numerous 

illustrations. 2s. 6d. 
TIME AND TIDE : a Romance of the Moon. 

By Sir ROBERT S. BALL, F.R.S., Royal Astronomer of Irelajid- 

"Second Edition Revised. Illustrated. 2s. 6d. 

By the late CHAIILKS MEYMOTT TIDY, M.B.M.S., F.C.S. With 

numerous illustrations. 2s. 

A Lecture by Professor GREEN, M.A., F.R.S. ]s. 
SOAP-BUBBLES, and tbe Forces which mould them. 

By 0. V. BOYS, A.R.S.M., F.R.S. With numerous diagrams. 2s. 6rf. 

By Prof. J. PERRY, M.E., D.Sc., F.R.S. With numerous diagrams. 
2s. 6d. 


A Scries of Manuals which furnish in a brief and popular form an accurate 

account of the great Non-Christian Religious Systems of the World. 

Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. 6d. each. 

BUDDHISM : Being a Sketch of the Life and Teachings of 
Gautama, the Buddha. 

By T. W. RHYS DAVIDS. With Map. 

By the Rev. S. BEAL. With Map. 

CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM : A Comparison and a Con- 

By the Rev. T. STERLING BEHRY, D.D. 

By Professor R. K. DOUGLAS, of the British Museum. With Map. 



By J. W. H. STOBART. Witli Map. 
ISLAM, as a Missionary Religion. 

15y CHARLES R. HAINES. (2s.) 

THE CORAN : Its Composition and Teaching:, and the Testimony 
it bears to the Holv Scriptures. 




This Series furnishes a perfect Library of English Ecclesiastical History. 
E-ich volum", it complete in itself, and the possibility of rep tition / 
been carefully guarded ajainst. 

Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards. 

Bath and Wells. 

By the Rev. W. HUNT. With Map, 2s. Qd. 


By the Kev.R.C. JENKINS, Hon. Cauon of Canterbury. With Mnp,3*.6<<. 


By RICHAHD S. FERGUSON, Esq. With Map, 2s. Qd. 


By the Rev. W. R. W. STEPHENS. With Map and Plan, 2". t>,/. 


By the Rev. 1. L. Low. With Map and Plan, 2s. Qd. 


By the Rev. Canon PHILLOTT. With Map, 3s. 


By the Rev. W. BERESFORD. With Map, 2.9. Qd. 


By the Rev. A. JESSOPP, D.D. With Map, 2. Qd. 


By the Rev. E. MARSHALL. With Map, 2*. Qd. 


By the Rev. G. A. POOLE, M.A. With Map, 2s. 6d. 


By the RJV. W. H. JONES. With Map and Plan, 2s. Qd. 

St. Asaph. 

By the Yen. Archdeacon THOMAS. With Map, 2*. 

St. David's. 

By the Rev. Canon BEVAN. With Map, 2*. Qd. 


By the Rev. W. BENHAM, B.D. With Map, 3s. 


By the Rev. I. GREGORY SMITH, M.A., and the Rev. PHIPPS ONSLOW, 
M.A. With Map, 3s. Qd. 


By the Rev. Canon ORNSBY, M.A., F.S.A. With Map, 3s. Qd. 


This Series of Books deals with the chief systems of Ancient Thought, not 
merely as dry matters of History, but as having a bearing on Modern 

Fcap. 8vo, cloth boards, 2s. Qd. each. 


The Ethics of Aristotle, by the Rev. I. GREGORY SMITH, M.A., Hon. 
LL.D. The Logical Treatise, the Metaphysics, the Psychology, the 
Politics, by the Rev. W. GRUNDY, M.A. 


By W. WALLACE, Esq., Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. 


By the Rev. W. W. CAPES, Fellow of Hertford College. 



Nos. 1 to 7, in Famous Sizes and Bindings, ranging in price from Id. 

to is. 8d. 
CHURCH HYMNS, with Tunes. 

Edited by Sir ARTHUR SULLIVAN. Crown Svo, Fcap. 4to, and Folio 

(Organ copy), in various Bindings, from '2s. to 1 Is. 

Bound in one Volume, and in Two Volumes in Cases. Can be had 

in various Sizes and Bindings, from 5d. to 4s. 

Brevier, Svo, limp paste grain roan, red edges, 6s. 


By various Authors. With Maps and Plans. 

Crown Svo, cloth boards, red cdgrs, 4s.; half calf , 10s. ; whole calf, 

12s.; half morocco, 12s. each volume. 

Vol. I., containing the Pentateuch. 

Vol. II., containing the Historical Books, Joshua to Esther. 

Vol. III., containing the Poetical Books, Job to Song of Solomon. 

Vol. IV., containing the Prophetical Books, Isaiah to Malachi. 

Vol. V. , containing the Apocryphal Books. 

Vol. I., containing the Four Gospels. 

Vol. II., containing the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 


This Series is chiefly intended to illustrate the Sacred Scriptures by the 
results of recent Monumental Researches in the East. The Volumes 
have, however, an independent value, as furnishing, as far as they go, 
thoroughly trustworthy histories of the ancient Monarchies of the Eastern 

Fcap. Svo, cloth boards, 2s. each. 

ASSYRIA, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh. 

By the late GEORGE SMITH, of the Department of Oriental Antiquities, 
British Museum. 

BABYLONIA, the History of. 

By the late GEORGE SMITH. Edited by the Kev. H. A. SAYCE, Assistant 
Professor of Comparative Philology, Oxford. 

EGYPT, from the Earliest Times to B.C. 3OO. 
By the late S. BIRCH, LL.D. 

PERSIA, from the Earliest Period to the Arab Conquest. 
By the late W. S. W. VAUX, M.A., F.R.S. 

SINAI, from the Fourth Egyptian Dynasty to the Present Time. 
By the late H. SPENCER PALMER, Major R.E., F.R.A.S. A new- 
edition, revised throughout by the Rev. Professor SAYCE. 




By the Rev. DANIEL MOORE. Printed in red and black. Post 

8vo Cloth boards 1 6 

ALONE WITH GOD ; or, Helps to Thought and Prayer, 
for the use of the Sick ; based on Short Passages of 

By the Rev. F. BOURDILLON, M.A. 12mo Cloth boards 1 


By the Rev. C. R. BALL, M.A. Post 8vo Cloth boards 2 6 

(THE) : Its Bearing upon the Evidences of the Truth of 

Five Lectures, by the BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS. Small 
Post 8vo Cloth boards 1 6 


By the Rev. F. BOURDILLON, M.A. 12mo Cloth boards 2 

BEING OF GOD, Six Addresses on the. 

By C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 
Small Post 8vo Cloth boards 1 6 

BIBLE PLACES ; or, The Topography of the Holy Land. 

By the Rev. Canon TRISTRAM. With Map and numerous 
Woodcuts. Crown 8vo Cloth boards 4 


The Minor Festivals Devotionally Studied. By CHRISTINA G. 
ROSSETTI, author of " Seek and Find." Post 8vo. Cloth boards 5 ' 


By the Rev. T. MOORE, M.A. Post 8vo Paper boards 6 


By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D. With numerous Illustrations. 
Crown 8vo Cloth boards 5 

CHRISTUS COMPROBATOR; or, The Testimony of Christ 
to the Old Testament. 

Seven Addresses byC. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester 

and Bristol. Small Post 8 vo Cloth boards 2 

on the. 

By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D., author of "Turning-Points of 
Church History," &c. With Map. Crown 8vo. Cloth boards 2 6 



By the Rev. EDWARD L. CUTTS, D.D., author of "Pastoral 
Counsels," &c. Post 8vo Cloth board* 5 


Being Readings on the Person and Work of the Holy Ghos 1 
in Relation to the World, the Church, and the Individual. 
By the Rev. C. R. BALL, M. A. Small Post 8vo. Cloth board.; 2 6 

DIVINE SOCIETY (THE) ; or, The Church's Care of Large 

Cambridge Lectures on Pastoral Theology, 1890. By the Rev. 
Canon JACOB. Small Post 8 vo Cloth boards 2 6 


Arranged in the Form of an English Harmony, from the Text 
of the Authorised Version. By the Rev. J. M. FULLER, M.A. 
With Analytical Table of Contents and Four Maps. Clothboardu 1 


A Journal of Travel in Palestine, undertaken with special 
reference to its Physical Character. By the Rev. Canon TRIS- 
TRAM. With two Maps and Illustrations. Large Post 8vo. 

Cloth boards 10 6 


By the Rev. W. BAKER, D.D. Post 8vo Cloth boards 1 6 


By the Rev. F. BOURDILLOK, M.A. SEiUEsIand II. PostSvo. 

Cloth boards, each 2 6 


Notes on the Commandments. By CHRISTINA G. ROSSETTI. 
Post 8vo Cloth boards 2 


For the Use of the Younger Clergy. By various Writers. Edited 

by the Rev. Canon ELLEUTON. Large Tost 8 vo.... Cloth boards 6 

CENTURIES. StiAdies from the Lives of the Black 
Letter Saints of the English Calendar. 

By Mrs. RUNDLE CHARLES. Crown 8vo Cloth boards 5 


Six Addresses given in the Divinity Schools, Cambridge, by 

the Rev. E. T. LEEKE, M.A. Small Post 8vo Cloth boards 2 


A New Edi ion, with Notes, Appendix, and Preface. By the 

Rev. E. A. LITTON. PostSvo Cloth boards 4 



A New Edition, with Notes, Appendix, and Preface. By 
the Rev. J. S. HOWSON, D.D., Dean of Chester. Post 8vo. 

Cloth boards 3 


Lectures delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, by the 
Right Rev. J. Gorr, D.D. Post Svo Cloth boards 3 

PASTORAL COUNSELS; or, Words of Encouragement 
and Guidance to Holy Living. 

By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS. Crown Svo Cloth boards 1 6 

Reference to the Promises required of Candidates for 

By the late Venerable J. R. Nonius, B.D., Archdeacon of 
Bristol. Post Svo Cloth boards 2 


A Manual for the Sick. By the Rev. E. BURBIDGE, M.A. 

Post Svo Cloth boards 1 6 


Being a Series of Readings for Working Men. By the late 

Rev. R. G. DUTTON. Post Svo Cloth boards 1 


By Mrs. RUNDLE CHARLES, author of "The Schbnberg-Cotta 
Family." Post Svo Cloth boards 1 6 


Being a Course of Lessons on the Old Testament, for Schools 
and Families, arranged for every Sunday in the Year. By the 
Rev. C.R. BALL, M.A. Post Svo Cloth board* 1 6 


Lectures for Men. By the Right Rev. A. BARRY, D.D. 
Fcap. Svo Cloth boards 1 


Consisting of Twelve Coloured Photographic Views of Places 
mentioned in the Bible, beautifully executed, with Descriptive 
Lefterpress. By the Rev. Canon TRISTRAM. 

Cloth, bevelled boards, red edges 6 


A Double Scries of Short Studies of the Benedicite. By 
CHRISTINA G. ROSSKTTI. Post Svo Cloth boards 2 6 


BythelateRer. J. W. ButtOON, U.D. Post Svo. Cloth boards 1 tf 


SINAI AND JERUSALEM ; or, Scenes from Bible Lands, s. d. 

Consisting of Coloured Photographic Views of Places mentioned 
in the Bible, including a Panoramic View of Jerusalem, with 
Descriptive Letterpress. By the Rev. F. "W. HOLLAND, M.A., 
Demy 4to Cloth, bevelled boards, gilt edges 6 


By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D., author of "St. Cedd's Cross." 
Crown 8 vo Cloth boards 2 6 



Limp cloth 1 


Original and Selected. By EMILY C. ORR. Post 8vo. 

Limp clotli 1 

Studies from the Lives of Livingstone, Gordon, and 

By Mrs. RUNDLE CHARLES. Crown 8vo Cloth boards 3 6 

TIME FLIES; a Readme: Diary. 

By CHRISTINA G. ROSSETTI. Post 8vo Clothboards 2 6 


By Mrs. RUNDLE CHARLES, author of "The Schbnberg-Cotta 
Family, "&c. Printed in red and black. Post 8vo. Cloth boards 1 6 


By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D., Vicar of Holy Trinity, Haver- 
stock Hill. Crown 8 vo Cloth boards 3 6 


By the Rev. E. L. CUTTS, D.D., author of "Pastoral Counsels." 
Crown 8vo Cloth boards 5 


Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. By Mrs. RUNDLE 
CHARLES, author of "Chronicles of the Schbnherg-Cotta 
Family." Small PostSvo Cloth boards 1 (J 




University of California 


405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 

Return this material to the library 

from which it was borrowed.